More cores vs higher clock speeds?

[bossfrog]

I'm looking to build a gaming rig and I'm a little out of the loop in CPUs these days. I haven't done a build since 2006 and after spending 4 years away in the Marines, I decided why not build a new one?

Anyhoo, I'm specifically wondering whether it is better for gaming purposes to have more cores or higher clock speeds. For instance let's say a dual core Athlon II X2 265 @ 3.3 GHz vs an Athlon II X4 630 @ 2.8 GHz or some such. What's the rule of thumb here?

 

[k1114]

You want to look at benchmarks. http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2010/benchmarks,112.html The x4 630 is slightly better for gaming, I didn't look at the other charts.

There's also a best gaming CPU for the money article. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-cpu-core-i3-2100-recommended-processor,2895.html

 

[Wisecracker]

AMD Athlon II X3 450 Rana 3.2GHz

 

[bossfrog]

Thanks guys

 

[Emperus]

Well the quite obvious theory is that clock speeds can be increased but not cores.. And since games are fastly getting used to quad cores, it is obviously a wise decision to go for the X4 630.. The X3 as referred to above is also good for the price..

 

[majin ssj eric]

If you want the best gaming cpu look no further than the 2500k (2600k if you want bragging rights). They can't be beat these days....

 

[kramerica20]

If you want the best gaming cpu look no further than the 2500k (2600k if you want bragging rights). They can't be beat these days....

Why not the AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition Thuban 3.2GHz? How would you compare it to the 2500k?

 

[Timop]

Why not the AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition Thuban 3.2GHz? How would you compare it to the 2500k?

Being 1.5 generations behind architecturally and 1 process behind, the 2 extra cores don't really help, especially in non-heavily threaded apps like games.