Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which CPU is the better upgrade

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 16, 2010 9:02:13 PM

Im trying to decide between a e7600 3.06 ghz with 3 megs of l2 cache and 1066 FSB or e6700 with 3.2 ghz and 2 megs of l2 cache with 1066 FSB. Both are dual cores. I mostly game. My main reason for upgrading from my e6400 2.16 ghz proc is casue running Bad Company 2 is difficult even though i just bought a MSI gtx 460 cyclone.

More about : cpu upgrade

a c 83 à CPUs
August 16, 2010 9:08:22 PM

Bad Company will run better, but it's difficult for any dual core, it's a quad recommended game. As to which of those 2 processors are better I can't say for sure, but they're so close in performance I would go with which ever one you can fine cheaper.
m
0
l
a c 81 à CPUs
August 16, 2010 9:14:18 PM

If you cannot afford upgrading to a quad CPU, i'd recommend you to try overclocking your current CPU.. No point getting any of those dual cores..
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 79 à CPUs
August 16, 2010 9:34:02 PM

can you get a q8200/q8300? should only be a bit more. only 2.33 / 2.5 Ghz, but bfbc2 does use four threads, or at least whilst i'm playing it one thread is at 100% the other 3 are at 50% ish.
m
0
l
August 16, 2010 9:37:43 PM

My board can only handle 1066 mhz on the FSB so i didnt want to get a processor than runs at 1333 cause its kind of a waste
m
0
l
a c 105 à CPUs
August 16, 2010 9:42:12 PM

"For those that were concerned about dual vs. quad-core CPU battle, here is a little more info...

The game appears to be using all four cores when available. Here we used a standard Core i7 920 processor running at 2.66GHz. Please note HyperThreading was disabled and a single Radeon HD 5850 graphics card was used. As you can see none of the cores are working very hard.

Here is the same Core i7 920 processor with two cores disabled as well as HyperThreading. As you can see neither core is maxed out, but the CPU utilization is much higher. So again, a decent dual core processor such as a Core 2 Duo E8xxx or Phenom II X2 should be enough to get the most out of your graphics card in this game. While it is quad-core optimized, the game is not demanding enough on the CPU to warrant it based on what I have seen so far. "

http://www.techspot.com/article/255-battlefield-bad-com...
m
0
l
a c 81 à CPUs
August 17, 2010 12:43:35 AM

I guess the Q6XXX and Q8XXX line of CPU's feature a 1066MHz FSB.. Also, the choices would open up if the motherboard gets to support the 1333MHz FSB processors via a BIOS update..
m
0
l
a c 81 à CPUs
August 17, 2010 12:52:00 AM

ct1615 said:
"For those that were concerned about dual vs. quad-core CPU battle, here is a little more info...

The game appears to be using all four cores when available. Here we used a standard Core i7 920 processor running at 2.66GHz. Please note HyperThreading was disabled and a single Radeon HD 5850 graphics card was used. As you can see none of the cores are working very hard.

Here is the same Core i7 920 processor with two cores disabled as well as HyperThreading. As you can see neither core is maxed out, but the CPU utilization is much higher. So again, a decent dual core processor such as a Core 2 Duo E8xxx or Phenom II X2 should be enough to get the most out of your graphics card in this game. While it is quad-core optimized, the game is not demanding enough on the CPU to warrant it based on what I have seen so far. "

http://www.techspot.com/article/255-battlefield-bad-com...


Taking BC2's CPU performance as reference, it looks like future games will be able to tax out all the four cores more efficiently.. The benchmarks do good to suggest a no upgrade need for current high range dual core holders but also point out the upgrade worth for anyone going up from a low to mid range dual core to a quad CPU.. Considering how well the dual cores still perform with majority of the games, a quad core will definitely be a keeper for a long time to come..
m
0
l
!