Gaming CPU $150 USD


These 2 CPUs are each around $150. My only use is for gaming on Win7 64-bit. Which is the best pick?

Q8300 or E7600
13 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about gaming
  1. Do you already have an LGA 775 Socket and looking to upgrade? If not, I would go with the Phenom II X4 955 for your build at that price range on a CPU.

    The E7600 will be better in most games due to the higher clock speed but those games that can utilize four cores, the Q8300 will have a benefit. You really need to look at the specific games you want to play and look for benchmarks to compare performance against.
  2. Q8300 and overclock it
  3. Q8300 if you already have a socket 775 mobo, otherwise you would do better to get an I3 or Phenom II.
  4. ... Save up an extra $17 and go for the E8400? It's not that big of a stretch, and if it'll OC anything like the E8600, it's worth it. Though it's only got 2 cores, most gaming benchmarks put it above its quad-cored brethren.

    Otherwise, it's a tough call. The 7600 does have the higher clock speed, but it's hampered by the lower FSB and L2 cache compared to the Q8300
    As Tecmo34 said, it really comes down to the games you'll be running. In most cases, though, you'll probably do just fine with the 7600. Though, the Q8300 should be able to OC nicely, provided you have the proper cooling solution in place.
    I'd go for the E7600 for stock speeds.
  5. Thank you all for the input (just got home from work and was delighted to see so much helpful advice!)

    It occurred to me I may be asking the wrong question, it takes maybe more knowledge than I currently possess to ask the right one straight away ;-)

    I play Supreme Commander, EVE Online, Sins of a Solar Empire.
    My next PC game purchase will be Supreme Commander 2 March 2nd!

    I already own the 775 mobo, and recently upgraded my graphics card to an ATI 5770. Honestly, I seem to be getting GREAT performance (60fps) even with my old processor (E6300). But I'm in the mode of upgrading and thought maybe the CPU should be upgraded too "just 'cause" since it is the oldest component and I could spend $150. Maybe faster HDD or more Memory would be wiser use of the $150? What do you think?

    OR where could I find instructions to monitor and determine where any bottleneck might be for a particular game?

    Here are the current system specifics:
    OS: Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
    CPU: Core2Duo E6300 @ 1.86 GHz
    RAM: 1x 4GB G.SKILL DDR3 1333
    Graphics Card: Sapphire Vapor-X 100283VXL Radeon HD 5770 1 GB 128-bit
    Primary Adapter: 4800 x 900@60Hz (3-displays eyefinity)
    Motherboard: ASUSP5G43T-M Pro
    Graphics Driver Version: 12/11/2009 version 8.690.0.0 and Catalyst Control Center 10.1 (2009.1211.1547.28237)
    Sound Card: On-board
    Hard Drive: Western Digital WDC WD2500JS-75NCB3
    Power Supply: OCZ ModXStream Pro Power Supply - 600-Watt
  6. Yea... I say spend the $17 extra for the E8400. It's worth the investment. Just means not eating out for... 3 trips maybe?
    Otherwise, the E7600 is the way to go.
  7. I also agree with those that say to save the extra $17 and get a E8400. I don't see a reason for you to boost RAM. Only get a bigger hard drive if you really need the space. A newer CPU will go a long way for the $150.
  8. If you play a lot of SupCom, then the Quad is the way to go. SupCom loves Quads.
  9. I would plan on another 4gb stick of ram just to enable dual channel
  10. Best answer
    ColMirage said:
    If you play a lot of SupCom, then the Quad is the way to go. SupCom loves Quads.

    It all chokes up anyway when the Commander goes BOOM! Yes, there is a performance gain from having the quad-core, but it probably won't get noticed between these 2 CPUs.

    Adding more RAM to his configuration may not help much in the end. True, if the rig were running Dual-Channel, there would be performance increases. However, 8GB is a bit towards the overkill side of things. Most systems (read: gaming rig) run fine on 4GB. The only way there'd be a boost would be to swap the single stick for 2 2's and run it dual channel. Not worth it.
    Like adding a spoiler to a Geo Metro. Unless the rest of the system is bottlenecking because there's not enough RAM (highly unlikely in this case), adding to it won't help. It'll make it look cooler and make you think you've got bragging rights until everyone realizes there's no point in it being there.

    Stick with the E8400. It'll perform better in a greater majority of games, both out now and upcoming titles. Just remember, system requirements for Starcraft 2 just came out. damn good game to be sure, only requires a single core (though, WoW has been patched to utilize dual-core).
    FSB, L2 cache, and stock speed are you friends in your case. Throwing 2 extra cores at it won't make a night/day difference.
    Refer to the last SBM. Better yet go here and check out the performance of the E8400 and GTX 260 (on par with the HD5770, check the chart). I know, the article even says (World in Conflict) is CPU limited. But the quad-core that's beating out the E8400 costs almost $100 more. You'll see similar frame rates between the E8400 and Q8300, with the E8400 more than likely maintaining a slight lead.

    Go with the E8400 for the sake of any other games you'll be enjoying.
  11. If you are happy with your current setup why not put the $150 aside and try overclocking your CPU?

    Put that $150 in your savings for a new system or something. :) 1.8ghz is definitely bottlenecking though, if you can overclock then you can turn that CPU into a decent one.
  12. Awesome information, thank you for all the advice, I'll be reading through the links you provided next. Also great point about StarCraft II, that is also on my must-buy list.
  13. Best answer selected by troy144.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Gaming Product