I'm planning to buy a new PC and I'm not sure which CPU is right for me. I'm a programmer and I know how fast my CPU needs to be to do development so my question is purely about gaming. Do new games really need that much CPU power so that having a mid-range CPU would actually be a bottleneck? What are those i7 990 extreme edition good for anyway, why would anyone want to buy them? And which processor should I buy for a high-end PC so that I'll be able to play pretty much any games today?
Solution
Busac :
My budget is big enough, I want to get a GTX 580 or two 
, and was considering something along the lines of i7 950. But even this feels a bit overpowered for anything I might want to do. How could Starcraft 2 possibly utilize so much processing power?
(About sandy bridge: the current motherboards don't look all that awesome and I don't feel like waiting a couple more months for some better ones to come out.)
, and was considering something along the lines of i7 950. But even this feels a bit overpowered for anything I might want to do. How could Starcraft 2 possibly utilize so much processing power?(About sandy bridge: the current motherboards don't look all that awesome and I don't feel like waiting a couple more months for some better ones to come out.)
SC2 Is really processor intensive, for both gameplay and graphics. There's a ton of AI for unit control and computer players that can tax most processors. In addition, there's also a bunch of graphics stuff that needs to be done on CPU in that game. Reflections on water require CPU processing power, that when enabled...
Well, new games certainly can be CPU bottlenecked. Starcraft 2 is a good example of this, and it's not the only one. As for a good CPU to handle games, the i7 9XX are good, or the new i7s on the 1366 platform will be able to rock any new game hard.
pkhamidar2com
Distinguished
- Feb 2, 2011
- 387
- 0
- 18,790
Depends on your budget.
For me i myself would go for amd 955 or 965 or something since they arn't bad. If you want to go higher apparantly the 2500K from intel i5 is good also.
if you can aford it get those i7 processors. You dont need the extreme editions.
If you wanna play any game i reccomend getting i5 2500K (around 150 quid i think, not too sure)
and for a graphics card maybe a gtx 280 or if you want to go for osmething big, maybe gtx 460?
but im getting the amd phenom ii x4 955 or 965, and a gtx 260 or gts 450 so yeah.
For me i myself would go for amd 955 or 965 or something since they arn't bad. If you want to go higher apparantly the 2500K from intel i5 is good also.
if you can aford it get those i7 processors. You dont need the extreme editions.
If you wanna play any game i reccomend getting i5 2500K (around 150 quid i think, not too sure)
and for a graphics card maybe a gtx 280 or if you want to go for osmething big, maybe gtx 460?
but im getting the amd phenom ii x4 955 or 965, and a gtx 260 or gts 450 so yeah.
My budget is big enough, I want to get a GTX 580 or two , and was considering something along the lines of i7 950. But even this feels a bit overpowered for anything I might want to do. How could Starcraft 2 possibly utilize so much processing power?
(About sandy bridge: the current motherboards don't look all that awesome and I don't feel like waiting a couple more months for some better ones to come out.)
, and was considering something along the lines of i7 950. But even this feels a bit overpowered for anything I might want to do. How could Starcraft 2 possibly utilize so much processing power?(About sandy bridge: the current motherboards don't look all that awesome and I don't feel like waiting a couple more months for some better ones to come out.)
Chad Boga
Distinguished
- Dec 30, 2009
- 1,095
- 0
- 19,290
Busac :
My budget is big enough, I want to get a GTX 580 or two , and was considering something along the lines of i7 950. But even this feels a bit overpowered for anything I might want to do. How could Starcraft 2 possibly utilize so much processing power?
(About sandy bridge: the current motherboards don't look all that awesome and I don't feel like waiting a couple more months for some better ones to come out.)
, and was considering something along the lines of i7 950. But even this feels a bit overpowered for anything I might want to do. How could Starcraft 2 possibly utilize so much processing power?(About sandy bridge: the current motherboards don't look all that awesome and I don't feel like waiting a couple more months for some better ones to come out.)
How long are you planning to keep your cpu/computer for?
It always amazes me at the people who just look at current game results and if a cpu gives a passable result, they give it the big thumbs up.
Well what about games that come out in the one or two or three years after you buy your computer that are more demanding on the CPU?
As a desktop user, I would never spend $1,000+ for a i7 990x, and instead look at what I can get between $180 to $350, probably falling in around the $250 mark on average.
wonder44
Distinguished
- Oct 27, 2010
- 447
- 0
- 18,810
Hi. ok personaly i think that computers are a waste of money, i mean i still use them for gaming but technology is advancing everyday so what ever cpu you buy today will be outdated by abetter one tommorow (figure of speech) but you know what i mean. and core i7 is a waste of money in my opinion becuase you can buy a core 2 duo extreme wich is just as good and twice as cheap. my advice is would be a intel core 2 duo e8200. it has 6mb l2 cache, 1333mh fsb, 2 cores, 2.66GHz , intel virtualization technology, 64bit capability, intel trusted execution technology and execute disable bit. wich would be great for new games such as gta 4, crysis ect.... for a cheap price and good performance. but its not all about the cpu, i have seen gta 4 max settings on a celeron d 2.4GHz with 4gb ram and a hd radeon 5970 running at a decent frame rate, my guess was about 45 fps average. so it all comes down to ram and gpu more than any thing, i mean a good cpu is great but it dosent mean everything when it comes to gaming. and sorry about the long reply i got carried away i like to help people out with this stuff so they are not wasting there money on something that isnt worth it. but its your choice and how much your willing to pay. and by the way thats the cpu i have a e8200 and a ati 4750 1gb, 3gb ram windows 7 home and games run great.
anyway hope iv helped you out, any more questions just email me, kylewonder44@hotmail.com
bearclaw99
Distinguished
- Dec 20, 2010
- 529
- 0
- 19,060
Busac :
My budget is big enough, I want to get a GTX 580 or two , and was considering something along the lines of i7 950. But even this feels a bit overpowered for anything I might want to do. How could Starcraft 2 possibly utilize so much processing power?
(About sandy bridge: the current motherboards don't look all that awesome and I don't feel like waiting a couple more months for some better ones to come out.)
, and was considering something along the lines of i7 950. But even this feels a bit overpowered for anything I might want to do. How could Starcraft 2 possibly utilize so much processing power?(About sandy bridge: the current motherboards don't look all that awesome and I don't feel like waiting a couple more months for some better ones to come out.)
How could Starcraft 2 possibly utilize so much GPU power? 2x580 GTX is way overkill
1965ohio
Distinguished
- Jan 12, 2011
- 697
- 0
- 19,060
Spending more than $300 on any CPU is a waste of money. You can just get an i7-2600k or less and still beat a lot of $1000 Extreme Edition CPUs. Also, the 1156 and 1366 sockets are being phased out in favor of the newer and faster 1155 Sandy Bridge chips.
Also as for the AMD side, even the 1100T or the 975BE can still be a bottleneck considering the GPUs you mentioned. If you get the 2500k or 2600k and are not happy with stock performance, they can be easily overclocked with a simple multiplier bump. Many people in this forum right now are running 2600k @4.6Ghz on air cooling and some higher. The performance is on part with the high end i7's from the last generation and only a 1/4 of the price.
It's a no-brainer.
Also as for the AMD side, even the 1100T or the 975BE can still be a bottleneck considering the GPUs you mentioned. If you get the 2500k or 2600k and are not happy with stock performance, they can be easily overclocked with a simple multiplier bump. Many people in this forum right now are running 2600k @4.6Ghz on air cooling and some higher. The performance is on part with the high end i7's from the last generation and only a 1/4 of the price.
It's a no-brainer.
Yeah the extreme core2duos are not "just as good" as i7s more like a low i3. Anyway I would agree that a top CPU isn't that important unless your spending ~$1000 on your GPU then you're crazy to bottleneck it with a low end CPU. Every month Tom's runs an article for the best gaming CPU's and GPU's and they point out a top end (particularly in the CPUs) that really doesn't make sense to go past. I suppose thats why they call it Past the Point of Reason. Until you hit that point though, if you have a top end GPU you can certainly unlock more of its potential by pairing it with a better processor.
You get the most value out of a computer if you minimize bottlenecks.
You get the most value out of a computer if you minimize bottlenecks.
1965ohio
Distinguished
- Jan 12, 2011
- 697
- 0
- 19,060
Any Extreme Edition Intel is a waste anyways. Look at the Pentium 4 EE that ran over $1500. Today a budget Dual Core Celeron can probably beat it. Usually the sweet spot for CPUs is $200-300. Anything above that is next years junk. Anything below that was already last years junk.
Thanks for the replies, I do appreciate them! I would like to keep this computer for a while and I realize that games will be more demanding in the future, I just simply don't understand how could they possibly need that much processing power. What wonder44 says kinda makes sense, even though I definitely don't want to buy a Core 2 Duo. If I get a decent CPU with reasonable performance today, it might look like junk next year compared to new CPUs, but will there actually be software that I won't be able to run?? I don't care if my CPU is slower than all others as long as it can keep up with whatever I throw at it.
Sandy bridge might be new but I don't see any real benefits. The integrated GPU is obviously of no interest to me, I don't really care about video encoding and power consumption is not bothering me too much either. The 2600 seems to be about the same price than 950 but I didn't see any sb motherboard with x16/x16 PCIe.
bearclaw99> I never said I plan to play SC2, that was just a reply to scotu's post
.
Sandy bridge might be new but I don't see any real benefits. The integrated GPU is obviously of no interest to me, I don't really care about video encoding and power consumption is not bothering me too much either. The 2600 seems to be about the same price than 950 but I didn't see any sb motherboard with x16/x16 PCIe.
bearclaw99> I never said I plan to play SC2, that was just a reply to scotu's post
.
1965ohio
Distinguished
- Jan 12, 2011
- 697
- 0
- 19,060
If you get a current i5 or i7... you won't have any trouble, just not many future upgrade paths. Some people still like to get Core 2 Quads clocked over 3 GHz... and they are cheaper than the first generation i7 at the moment because people want to get rid of them, but the i7 has more benefits in the architecture.
Honestly, the only reason to buy any CPU or graphics card or anything over $300 is if you work for Pixar or Lucasfilm and need to render full CGI animations or something. Home users will not see any benefit in the speed and only notice a reduction in the wallet. Just think, your current computer is much faster than the ones used in 1991 to make Terminator 2... and most people's computers are still better than the ones used to make the new Star Wars Prequels. Most of the time they had custom built Xeon setups with custom graphics cards, but even the home user can do it today.
But if you do work for Pixar and need a $1000 CPU and a $1000 video card, you won't save money, just time in rendering.
Honestly, the only reason to buy any CPU or graphics card or anything over $300 is if you work for Pixar or Lucasfilm and need to render full CGI animations or something. Home users will not see any benefit in the speed and only notice a reduction in the wallet. Just think, your current computer is much faster than the ones used in 1991 to make Terminator 2... and most people's computers are still better than the ones used to make the new Star Wars Prequels. Most of the time they had custom built Xeon setups with custom graphics cards, but even the home user can do it today.
But if you do work for Pixar and need a $1000 CPU and a $1000 video card, you won't save money, just time in rendering.
1965ohio
Distinguished
- Jan 12, 2011
- 697
- 0
- 19,060
I was having a discussion in another forum the other day about the processing power of the flight computers used by NASA in the 1960s and 70s... and by today's standards, a modern cell phone is already 100x more powerful in calculations and functionality.
If you want to get a decent gaming rig though, any Core 2 Quad over 3GHz, Core i5/7 over 2.66GHz or any AMD over 3.4GHz with 4 cores will suit you just fine.
The only reason they have extreme lines is for large companies that really need the speed difference to save money and time in video production. Even servers with 4 or more physical CPUs each with 4 or more cores still won't do anything for you in games. So anything in the $200-300 range will be great for now and 2 or 3 years.
If you want to get a decent gaming rig though, any Core 2 Quad over 3GHz, Core i5/7 over 2.66GHz or any AMD over 3.4GHz with 4 cores will suit you just fine.
The only reason they have extreme lines is for large companies that really need the speed difference to save money and time in video production. Even servers with 4 or more physical CPUs each with 4 or more cores still won't do anything for you in games.
So anything in the $200-300 range will be great for now and 2 or 3 years.That's exactly what I was thinking... for CPUs at least. GPUs never seem to be powerful enough , if you want to get 2x60fps in 3D in games that will come this fall you'll probably need all the power you can get. But that's because it's so easy to increase the model details / texture sizes / number of light sources / etc. With CPUs... I don't plan to do any advanced audio / video editing, CGI or folding@home so I guess I'll be fine.
Btw I found out that the 1155 motherboards have x8/x8 PCIes because of an inherent 16 lane limit of the architecture. I know that benchmarks show there is very little difference with current GPUs but I think I'll rather stay safe...
EDIT:
So if I was to look for some older CPUs such as Core 2 (or AMDs but I'm not familiar with them at all), what are my motherboard options? Would I be even able to find any reasonably modern motherboard that would support my GPUs?
, if you want to get 2x60fps in 3D in games that will come this fall you'll probably need all the power you can get. But that's because it's so easy to increase the model details / texture sizes / number of light sources / etc. With CPUs... I don't plan to do any advanced audio / video editing, CGI or folding@home so I guess I'll be fine.Btw I found out that the 1155 motherboards have x8/x8 PCIes because of an inherent 16 lane limit of the architecture. I know that benchmarks show there is very little difference with current GPUs but I think I'll rather stay safe...
EDIT:
So if I was to look for some older CPUs such as Core 2 (or AMDs but I'm not familiar with them at all), what are my motherboard options? Would I be even able to find any reasonably modern motherboard that would support my GPUs?
1965ohio
Distinguished
- Jan 12, 2011
- 697
- 0
- 19,060
If you want full x16 on each lane, better choose an i7 with the 1366 socket.
Core 2 Quads are on the LGA775 socket and it's becoming extinct sooner than later. Also remember that the Sandy Bridge 1155 sockets are the new mainstream, whereas there will be better ones on a later socket LGA2011 coming in a few months that will support full x16 lanes on all slots and 4 channel memory.
If you find Core 2 boards, it will likely be the same x8/x8 or x8/x4/x4.
But don't let x8/x8 discourage you, even the highest end graphics cards there will be less than a 5% difference going from x8 to x16.
Core 2 Quads are on the LGA775 socket and it's becoming extinct sooner than later. Also remember that the Sandy Bridge 1155 sockets are the new mainstream, whereas there will be better ones on a later socket LGA2011 coming in a few months that will support full x16 lanes on all slots and 4 channel memory.
If you find Core 2 boards, it will likely be the same x8/x8 or x8/x4/x4.
But don't let x8/x8 discourage you, even the highest end graphics cards there will be less than a 5% difference going from x8 to x16.
jfby
Distinguished
- Jun 4, 2010
- 418
- 0
- 18,810
This is very painful to read, and extremely short sighted. You think computers are a waste of money? Why are you on Tom's Forum? I don't like drag racing, but I don't go to drag racing forums trying to hand out advice...
And I've played several games on my i7-930 system that actually utilize the 1-2 cores that it's using to a high percentage, and I expect in a few years games will be out that will use more of the power and would crush the core 2 duo.
dadiggle> I don't currently have a desktop, my work laptop is mobility-oriented (with integrated GPU) and I've recently returned an Alienware notebook because it was having graphical issues. Then I've realized that I could probably get much better performance with a desktop PC.
Yeah that's what I'm saying, currently the lanes aren't utilized but what about future? LGA2011 would be awesome but that isn't coming for a couple of months and I don't really want to wait too much, also I have no idea what price to expect from that.
Yeah that's what I'm saying, currently the lanes aren't utilized but what about future? LGA2011 would be awesome but that isn't coming for a couple of months and I don't really want to wait too much, also I have no idea what price to expect from that.
Thaizasaskand
Distinguished
- Dec 18, 2010
- 46
- 0
- 18,530
Since LGA2011 is going t be used for Sandy bridge EE processors, it will cost a lot to buy a compatible processor. A Phenom ii x4 955 would suit your needs more than adequately (link below).http://www.amazon.co.uk/AMD-Phenom-3-2GHz-Processor-Boxed/dp/B002TQYUAE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1298077109&sr=8-1
If you want, and I would recommend it, then a hexacore might be useful (no games would make use of all of the cores, but in a couple of years, quadcore'll probably be a minimum requirement for the more graphically advanced games. 1090T black edition is a good one (link below)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/AMD-Phenom-1090T-Six-core-Processor/dp/B003FVI2KQ/ref=dp_return_2?ie=UTF8&n=340831031&s=computers
Or if you'd rather buy an intel then the 2600k would be good (or just the 2600 if you are not going to over clock (link below))
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Intel-Sandybridge-i7-2600K-Quad-Core-Processor/dp/B004FA8NOQ/ref=dp_return_2?ie=UTF8&n=340831031&s=computers
Judging by the fact that you don't want to wait for a good mo'bo' to be released, i'd get the 1090T or the 955, though all three cpu's are good.
Sorry about how long it is.
Busac :
My budget is big enough, I want to get a GTX 580 or two , and was considering something along the lines of i7 950. But even this feels a bit overpowered for anything I might want to do. How could Starcraft 2 possibly utilize so much processing power?
(About sandy bridge: the current motherboards don't look all that awesome and I don't feel like waiting a couple more months for some better ones to come out.)
, and was considering something along the lines of i7 950. But even this feels a bit overpowered for anything I might want to do. How could Starcraft 2 possibly utilize so much processing power?(About sandy bridge: the current motherboards don't look all that awesome and I don't feel like waiting a couple more months for some better ones to come out.)
SC2 Is really processor intensive, for both gameplay and graphics. There's a ton of AI for unit control and computer players that can tax most processors. In addition, there's also a bunch of graphics stuff that needs to be done on CPU in that game. Reflections on water require CPU processing power, that when enabled, require more than a stock speed i5-760 to run on max settings @ 1080p. Also the transparency effects of higher graphics settings use depth sorted alpha blending that requires CPU processing. My i7-920 @ 3.4GHz can play SC2 on Ultra settings w/ a GTX 260. My roomate's computer with a stock i5-760 and 2xGTX460s in SLI cannot (he has to turn of reflections).
ko888
Titan
- Feb 18, 2009
- 16,708
- 41
- 84,990
You didn't look hard enough. There are SB motherboards with NVIDIA's NF200 PCIe bridge chip that will run 2-way SLI at x16/x16. The ASUS P8P67 WS Revolution is one of those motherboards.
dimamu15
Distinguished
- Feb 7, 2011
- 80
- 0
- 18,640
AMD Phenom II x4 or > will suit your need just fine
Little bit more secure is Sandy Bridge, considering if price on SB i3 is lower 200$ then I would personally go with it. Well, I guess you can argue about that...
If looking into the future and possible demand in core's power, then maybe i7-2600k is a better choice, but for me really, paying 100$ only for Hyper-Threading is such a awful waste of money. Just look at them http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=52214,52209
This is all depends on your budget. If you got 1000$ and don't mind spend all of it on a system then just go for i5-2500k. I got mine for 750(after rebates) with i5-2500k, gtx 460, 4gb ram, 21''5 led lcd. Knowing that you bought alienware system then you probably got more than 1000$ budget. I would not go lower than Phenom II x4 on cpu. What would I do with 1000$ budget? well not much, just get a better gpu.
Off topic... I wanted to go for maybe slower cpu and spend more on gpu but i5-2500k was just too sweet to give up on. Now only board is keeping me from selling my toshiba crapy latop with ati x1200 gpu and enjoy full realism of directx 11 =\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ I AM DYING, I DIDN'T PLAY GOOD GAMES SINCE, well... since css, which is not even good by today standards(x1200 run it at like 12-30 fps on min setting). Oh well, just got to relax and watch more of a crysis footage *_*
Little bit more secure is Sandy Bridge, considering if price on SB i3 is lower 200$ then I would personally go with it. Well, I guess you can argue about that...
If looking into the future and possible demand in core's power, then maybe i7-2600k is a better choice, but for me really, paying 100$ only for Hyper-Threading is such a awful waste of money. Just look at them http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=52214,52209
This is all depends on your budget. If you got 1000$ and don't mind spend all of it on a system then just go for i5-2500k. I got mine for 750(after rebates) with i5-2500k, gtx 460, 4gb ram, 21''5 led lcd. Knowing that you bought alienware system then you probably got more than 1000$ budget. I would not go lower than Phenom II x4 on cpu. What would I do with 1000$ budget? well not much, just get a better gpu.
Off topic... I wanted to go for maybe slower cpu and spend more on gpu but i5-2500k was just too sweet to give up on. Now only board is keeping me from selling my toshiba crapy latop with ati x1200 gpu and enjoy full realism of directx 11 =\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ I AM DYING, I DIDN'T PLAY GOOD GAMES SINCE, well... since css, which is not even good by today standards(x1200 run it at like 12-30 fps on min setting). Oh well, just got to relax and watch more of a crysis footage *_*
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
News Windows 11 will reportedly display a watermark if your PC does not support AI requirements- Started by Admin
- Replies: 19
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 3K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram