Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

looking for a good CPU for gaming

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 11, 2003 11:54:45 PM

Hi, its time to upgrade my poor little P3 ( just cant resist HL2 ) What would be your suggestion for a great CPU for gaming, and one which will be great for all the games comming over the horizon? I dont mind paying some money, as long as the value is there, and the price is justified. I havent had much expierence with overclocking, but if its really that benifical, im sure I can start now. what would you suggest? thanks!

More about : good cpu gaming

December 12, 2003 1:16:00 AM

Give us your price range.
December 12, 2003 2:01:29 AM

Hello there.. this is my suggestion
for the budget under 100$ USD
AMD Athlon 2500+
for the budget 100- 200$ USD Pentium 2.4C
and finally for the budget over 200 the Athlon 64 3200+

As far as overclocking i would upgrade the 2500+ to a 3200+ by uping the FSB from 166 to 200

With the Pentium I would get the 200 FSB to atleast 230 which would get you around 2.8 GHZ

And i honostly cant advise you on what to do with ther Athlon 64 except that you really wouldnt need to overclock it until atleast 8 months or so
Related resources
December 12, 2003 3:40:49 AM

Im willing to spend up to about 400. I dont mind going over if it is really worth it. Im looking at the AMD 2500+ at the moment, as the price is nice... but I dont know if a jump to a 64 is really going to be worth the price difference. Let me know what you guys think, thanks!
December 12, 2003 3:44:27 AM

2.6C or a A64.

Any P4 overclock better that AXP and performe better that AXP.A64 have lower lantency so it a very good cpu for gaming

I dont like french test
December 12, 2003 4:09:30 AM

Re: Any P4 overclock better that AXP and performe better that AXP

Sounds like your set on intel for any situation.


aziboah The intel "c" versions are great chips but they are not the end all be all, especialy when overclocking.

An xp2500 should overclock (with only air cooling) a good fan. to at least 217fsb x 11 = 2387MHz. Thats with the multipler locked using pc3500 ram and any recent nforce2 mother board.

So is it posible the 2.6 "C" p4 (over Clocked) could match that performance? Maybe depending what benchmarcks you wish to concentrate on. If you pushed the 2.6 enough it could have the over all advantage (whow knows) I do know the difference would be relativly small... very small.

Yet this xp2500 would be a heck of a lot cheaper. than the 2.6 "c"


If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
December 12, 2003 5:22:23 AM

Actually the 2.6c can easily reach 3.2GHz, while I can not say the same for the 2500+. You seem very optimisting about every cheap "easily" reaching 2.3GHz. My next upgrade of the 1800+ I currently have will be a 2500+ and if I manage to reach 2.3GHz with SLK800 I will be more than happy, but I know that's not a sure bet! Anyway, a 2.3GHz performs about the same as a 3GHz Pentium 4 (Rev. C) so still, the 2.6c will be probably faster.
December 12, 2003 5:49:11 AM

Re: Actually the 2.6c can easily reach 3.2GHz, while I can not say the same for the 2500+.

Your right an xp2500 could never reach 3.2 giz if an xp2500 could reach 3.2 giz it would leave the p4ee at 3.2 giz in the dust. But we all know thats a silly argument and with todays x86 cpu's MHz is only part of the equation.

I believe 2387 MHz is a realistic expectation under the circumstances I mentioned above (no garuntee though). my xp2400 will do 2415 MHz @ 210 fsb

I know you can't garuntee the 2.6 will do 3.2 giz although it should.

Re: a 2.3GHz performs about the same as a 3GHz Pentium 4 (Rev. C) so still, the 2.6c will be probably faster.

I'm saying an xp2500 should do faster than 2300 like closer to 2400MHz plus a better FSB than you are comparing it to.

Re: 2.6c will be probably faster.

Maybe but not by much if it is, and we are over clocking in this situation. Certainly not worth double the price. At least in my opinion.


If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
December 12, 2003 6:35:54 AM

Just something I wanted to clear out:

Quote:
Re: Actually the 2.6c can easily reach 3.2GHz, while I can not say the same for the 2500+.

Your right an xp2500 could never reach 3.2 giz if an xp2500 could reach 3.2 giz it would leave the p4ee at 3.2 giz in the dust. But we all know thats a silly argument and with todays x86 cpu's MHz is only part of the equation.

What I meant is: "Actually the 2.6c can easily reach 3.2GHz, while I can not say the same <i>(reaching 2.3GHz)</i> for the 2500+."

Quote:
I'm saying an xp2500 should do faster than 2300 like closer to 2400MHz plus a better FSB than you are comparing it to.

Oh and btw, find me a 2500+ that can do 2.4GHz and I'll buy it right away! Generally, you seem very optimistic when it comes to overclocking Bartons !!

Anyway, to sum up, I believe it deffinetely worths it if he is going to do video encoding. Otherwise, either one will do.
December 12, 2003 7:47:07 AM

All bartons use the thoughbred B core. Just like my xp2400. All B core's overclock quite well when using good cooling artic silver3 which is why I made my first post.

Overclocking is tricky its not always the CPU holding you back. I'm sure you know all this but I'll say it any way. The only difference (physicaly, fsb multipliers aside) between my xp2400 and a barton xp2500 or xp3200 is the barton has 256kb more of cache. If a CPU gets to hot when overclocking it's usually the cache that screws up first. With the bartom having more cache it's more seceptable to this problem. However My xp2400 @ 2400MHz never goes over 48 degrees under load.

As with your 2.6 "C" many batches are produced and tested the ones that fail to make the grade for 1 reason or another get bumped down to a lower rating.

Re: Oh and btw, find me a 2500+ that can do 2.4GHz and I'll buy it right away! Generally, you seem very optimistic when it comes to overclocking Bartons !!

Well how about this then.

You can buy my none barton xp2400 which operates easy at 2400 MHZ on 200fsb. But I want you to pay me what you say its worth... twice what any store would sell it for and that is the price of a 2.6 "C" P4

So you claim all p4 2.6 Cs will do 3200 MHz or just most, and most xp thoughbreds Bs wont do 2.3 giz most of the time.

Re: Generally, you seem very optimistic when it comes to overclocking Bartons !!

Well maybe I have been lucky. who knows.. I'm not saying he will get 2400 MHz forsure but I stand by what I said and I believe it to be a reasonable expectation. anyhow I don't see a garuntee from you.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
December 12, 2003 7:52:38 AM

Re: Anyway, to sum up, I believe it deffinetely worths it if he is going to do video encoding. Otherwise, either one will do.

100% agree intel has advantage with video encoding but I think hes into gaming. and yes both cpus are similar when overclocked so it really make little diff. except maybe price.

So I'm not against the Intel chip infact i'd reccomend it except I don't like the price.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
December 12, 2003 8:33:07 AM

Sounds like your set on intel for any situation

Yes except for game the only place the A64 is good.

I dont like french test
December 12, 2003 11:27:08 AM

Generally right now my thought is:

Budget: 2500+
Performance: 2.6c
Top-end: A64
Extreme: FX-51 / P4EE

There are a few exceptions to that but in general.

Shadus
December 12, 2003 11:48:45 AM

Quote:
All bartons use the thoughbred B core

No they don't, they use the barton core. That's why they're called Bartons :eek:  . Granted they're basically the same, apart from the added cache, but that statement is simply wrong.

And also, a 2.6C @ 3.2 (which is <i>far</i> more common than a 2500+ @ 2.4Ghz). Plus the 2.6C @ 3.2 will be on a FSB of ~246, so I can't see how you can claim the athlon will have a faster FSB.

Virtually everyone can get at least 3Ghz from a 2.6C with the STOCK cooler that comes in the retail package, whereas Oced XP chips are generally using more expensive third-party coolers.

Granted the P4 <i>will</i> cost more, especially with the faster RAM to accomodate the high FSB, but it will easily outperform the oced 2500+.

If you've got less than ~$100 budget for the CPU, then get the 2500+, no question, but for a higher budget get a 2.4C or 2.6C


---
<font color=red>The preceding text is assembled from information stored in an unreliable organic storage medium. As such it may be innacurate, incomplete, or completely wrong</font color=red> :wink:
December 12, 2003 1:47:53 PM

Or you could by a good CPU and be happy with that. From the words of almost every post made by the Intel users it sounds like Intel CPU's from the factory perform terribly.
Every second word out of an Intel users mouth is OVERCLOCK.
Hardly needed in the last year or so and in most cases cause CPU failure if not understood how it is done. The newer CPU's from both AMD and Intel need no overclocking to run any software application currently made.
In fact overclocking the newer CPU's to enhance or improve game performance is a waste of time the software that is written for the game to function with has built in timing formulas that prevent the game engines from exceeding certain limits. So overclocking your CPU is not going to improve how the game runs. FPS is not entirely dependant on how fast a computer is because the games can only perform at software set levels.
What is more important in building a computer is to have a system that has hardware compatibility and harmony where the system and software work with efficiency.
Purchase hardware components that match the specs of all the components required to eliminate corruption of software and hardware incompatibility.

Take an example of a game called Battlezone 7 years ago we could run that game online on a Voodoo2 Graphics card with 16MB of memory in a motherboard running a 475MHz AMD cpu. The game then could punch out 100 FPS online on the game server and the graphics ran smoothly and effectively.
7 Years later that same game will run exactly the same in a new AMD 64 with either a Nvidia or ATI graphics card with 256MB of memory.

As games are getting more memory intensive it is advisable to have a system that can handle the requirements in hardware to run them but the Hardware and the software can only advance as fast as new hardware is developed. Games from last year or 2 years ago that used memory intensive software design will run better in some of the newer hardware but that was never the intent by either design the product is supposed to function at the prescribed settings stated by the designers.

The lag time between game performance and hardware is the real issue when a new game comes out it very seldom runs well in most of the general populations computers because they simply do not have the hardware to run it.

Half Life 2 is going to cause many sad faces when they realize the system spec's they have for hardware is just not going to cut-it where Half Life2 is concerned.

Another game that did this to the public was called Ghost Recon from ubi.soft they used cutting edge hardware to design the game on and when it was released to the public they were at least a full year to 2 years out of date for hardware requirements.

Barton 3200+ 400MHz
A7N8X Deluxe
Liquid
2x512 KinstonHyperX PC3200
GeForce FX5900
Maxtor DiamondMaxPlus9@80Gig
SONY CD 52x
SONY RW 52x/24x/52x
SONY DVD 16x/40x
December 12, 2003 2:17:09 PM

Wow, you didn't answer his question at all!

He wants to know what CPU to get for gaming, not which ones that you think people think that he might think he should avoid. In otherwords, answer the question, don't beat around the bush and don't lie.

Quote:
From the words of almost every post made by the Intel users it sounds like Intel CPU's from the factory perform terribly.
Every second word out of an Intel users mouth is OVERCLOCK.

Actually, mine is a B and it performs lovely (I don't have mine OCed)...so I'd imagine that they are happy with their factory performance in the C. BTW, what's wrong with getting more than what you paid for out of a processor anyway??

And the rest of your post is just falsity, if I didn't have a history paper due in 5 hours, I would break it down, piece by piece...proving you wrong once again, keeping your accuracy rating at 0%.

I do, however, find it amazing that you just try to negate everything that everybody else says, for no reason. You don't even answer his question!


Aziboah: I recommend either the A64 or any P4C. The A64 system will generally cost more, but offers great performance. A stock P4C will offer slightly less performance (depending on application and which P4C), but offers tremendous OCing potential, which is essentially just making a processor better for free. A nicely OCed 2.6C will outperform an A64 hands down. It will also cost about two-thrids the price (depending in which HS/HSF you get) for CPU, RAM, and mobo.

Damn Rambus.
December 12, 2003 2:42:14 PM

He never does. Just rambles on.
December 12, 2003 3:33:17 PM

As always, ignore this idiot, he doesn't know what he's talking about. If you choose to take anything he says at face value please get a collaborating second opinion before you spend any money or you might as well throw it away.

Shadus
December 12, 2003 4:02:21 PM

Budget: 2500+
Performance: 2.6c
Top-end: A64
Extreme: FX-51 / P4EE

My choice

Buget Barton 2500+
performance 2.6C
high-end P4 3.2C
You a are crazy Athlon FX i dont see Petium EE as a competitor just as a big show.

In mid term Pesto celleron on 533 bus might do some competion if they overclock well and prescott should get the tag as the world fastest cpu and higher version should start attacking even 1.5GHZ madison on SPEC FPU.Opteron should eat alive XEON until Nocona A64 will be marginal until it get a dual channel memory.The ? i dont know how much performance decrease when DDR-2 will arrive.

I dont like french test
December 12, 2003 4:02:46 PM

For now add my vote to the suggestion of Barton 2500+, a good mobo with the nForce chipset(FSB 200/400) and low latency pc 3200 ram. As previously noted, take the Barton to 3200 with FSB increase. Add the best graphics card you can (you don't say what card you've got or if part of your buget is for gfx upgrade). Have a great time playing games and revisit hardware when PCI Express/BTX form factor comes out in a year or two.

XP 2000+
MSI KT3 ULTRA-2 KT333
Maxtor 60GB ATA 133 7200RPM
512MB PC2700
ABIT G4 Ti4200 OTES 64MB
Win98SE
December 12, 2003 4:54:37 PM

All bartons use the thoughbred B core

No they don't, they use the barton core. That's why they're called Bartons. Granted they're basically the same, apart from the added cache, but that statement is simply wrong.

Are we nit picking here?
I did later say (The only difference (physicaly, fsb multipliers aside) between my xp2400 and a barton xp2500 or xp3200 is the barton has 256kb more of cache.) Yes Chipdeath you right they don't call it a throughbred B core they call it a barton core. Yet that is phyisicaly what it is with the extra cache.


I can nit pick too...

Re: Granted the P4 will cost more, especially with the faster RAM to accomodate the high FSB, but it will easily outperform the oced 2500+.

that statement is simply wrong. The word "will" in the above statment is wrong, the correct word is "should".... Over clocking is a gamble depending on the batch you chip was produced in. If the p4 2.6 "C" only does 3.0 giz (overclocked) and an athlonxp2500 did 2.4 giz (its possible I get that) in this case the xp2500 is the best performer.


Anyway I think Coyote has the best idea. Since it's gaming hes into buy the xp2500 over clock to 200 fsb and put all the money you save into a better vid card.


If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
December 13, 2003 5:36:28 AM

wow, thanks very much for all of your input, never expected to get such a good response!

Im looking at the Radeon 9800 pro/xt (deciding if the price jump to the xt is going to be worth it) and I dont even have a clue where to begin with a motherboard. I was going to upgrade a year ago and had all of my components chosen, but alas, need to get all new ones now. I know there was the RAID hype monthes back, and it was 'essentail' for EVERYONE to have a raid array on thier computer, but im wondering if its even worth bothering with. The A64 looks like a good CPU, but im just a little hesitiant to buy such new technology, and would rather wait for it to go down in price. My friend has an XP 2600 that he says he overclocks to 3200 just fine. A question I have (and forgive my ignorance if it dosent make any sense) is that when the 64 bit games come out, its going to be the 64 bit processors which are going rock, and the 32 bit cpus will start to fail. What do you think about this?
December 13, 2003 6:32:53 AM

Just a small update. I just noticed today that Newegg has the A64 3000+ in stock. It costs $215 so I believe if you can afford it, this is your best choice. This way you won't have to replace your mobo or your memory at your next upgrade, because you will be able to sipmly take out the 3000+ and put in a 3700+ for example. That is something that you won't be able to do with a Pentium 4 or Athlon XP system, since at your next CPU upgrade for either of the two, you will also have to buy new motherboard and memory. So the way I see it is that if you spend a little more money today, you will save yourself more money in the future.

Now about your question. It is a fact that the current 32bit CPUs won't be able to run 64bit games/applications. Now the big question here is how much the A64 will benefit from 64bit software because nobody really knows, and whether software developers will widely adopt AMD64. In my opinion, only time will show. But as I said earlier, in my opinion the 3000+ is a great option for someone to reject it, in favour of a Pentium 4 system. Unless you are on a really tight budget, in which case you are "forced" to choose Athlon XP.
December 13, 2003 3:39:28 PM

Thank you very much, it sounds like the a64 3000+ is going to work out best for me. Being able to upgrade the CPU and use the same mobo and memory is very appealing. May I ask which motherboards I should look at for this CPU? I can wait a little bit, if there is going to be a new series of boards comming out soon. I thank everyone for all the help they have given me =)
December 13, 2003 11:11:13 PM

Damn, that is a good price! Aziboah: get that.

Damn Rambus.
December 13, 2003 11:17:14 PM

The VIA chipset is the best available right now. THG just did a review and said the clear winner was the MSI KT800 Neo, which utilizes that chipset. Looks like a good mobo, IMO, too. The nVidia nForce 3 chipset is not as good as the the VIA (AFAIK, nVidia has not announced a 3.5 or whatever to fix its deficits), so any VIA chipset mobo should be fine if you can't get hold of the MSI.

EDIT: spelling error above

Damn Rambus.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Vapor on 12/13/03 09:04 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
December 13, 2003 11:59:43 PM

I also agree that the MSI K8T Neo is probably the best choice for a S754 motherboard. The only important thing that there is to wait for, is PCI Express. It won't appear though before Q3 2004 so it depends on whether you can be that patient or not!
December 14, 2003 4:37:18 AM

sorry to post this as well as message you, but I read an article that says AMD is going to stop devolpment on the 64 series (http://www.overclockers.com/articles902/).

If thats the case, would it be worth getting the 3000+ banking on the fact that I can upgrade the CPU later on down the line, and have a new CPU which will be compatible with my mobo and memory?

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by aziboah on 12/14/03 01:40 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
December 14, 2003 7:30:51 AM

AMD's officials have recently stated that they will continue production, as well as development, of Socket 754 CPUs throughout 2004. They also said that if the market requires it, they will also continue in 2005 (although I wouldn't really count on that). Right now, roadmaps show a 3700+ to be released in Q2 2004 so it is safe to assume that by the end of 2004 we will see at least 3900+ ~ 4000+ being released. Even at the worst case scenario that this is the end of the line of Socket 754 CPUs, it is up to you to decide according to your needs whether you will upgrade now or wait until Socket 939 is introduced in maybe Q2 2004 (also keep in mind that Socket 939 CPUs will be more expensive than the current Socket 754 CPUs you see today).

My opinion is this. Since I am not a very patient person, I would upgrade now (S754). In about 12 months from now if my CPU was no longer adequate for my needs, I would upgrade to the top of the line A64 (S754) CPU which should at least be more than enough for my needs throughout 2005. In fact, if you read this article carefully you will see that Intel will move to DDR II in 2004, while AMD has plans to move to DDR II in 2005. So let's assume that you wait now until summer for Socket 939 CPUs to appear. By that time, PCI Express will be also out (so we got that out of our heads) but DDR II will be at the horizon, so that would make your new system obsolete in less than 12 months. I think you see my point here. Anyway, I believe these are the facts. The decision will of course be yours, based on what you need and probably how often you like upgrading your PC.
December 14, 2003 11:44:50 AM

pitsi the AMD XP ready 2800+ max settings for stability is 2.25GHz I do not understand where you can claim a 2500+ will reach and function at 2.3GHz without a real serious CRASHING PROBLEM.
Just an FYI...
The 2800+ can go higher under special cooling applications.

Barton 3200+ 400MHz
A7N8X Deluxe
Liquid
2x512 KinstonHyperX PC3200
GeForce FX5900
Maxtor DiamondMaxPlus9@80Gig
SONY CD 52x
SONY RW 52x/24x/52x
SONY DVD 16x/40x
December 14, 2003 12:41:43 PM

He sprinkled it with special, <i> MAGICAL </i> fairy dust, K.
Maybe you should try some. Might help, though I doubt it.

P.S. I personaly OC'd two 1700+ to ~2.3 GHz. That fairy dust sure does help!

<font color=blue>If the <font color=yellow>laurel</font color=yellow> is to big for your head, it becomes a hoola-hoop, and you have to keep your butt really busy.</font color=blue>
December 14, 2003 12:57:51 PM

Although I was not the one who claimed in this thread that an Athlon XP can reach and function at 2.3GHz without any problems, I will bother replying to you since it is clear that you have absolutely NO idea about what you are talking about.

First of all, all Bartons overclock the same, even if that's a 2500+ or a 3000+. And second, overclocking a Barton to 2.2GHz is not anything unusual or difficult to do. In fact, it is 90% the minimum frequency that people get when trying to overclock a Barton. Also you don't need any "special cooling applications" to reach 2.3GHz. A friend of mine has his 2500+ clocked to 2.3GHz on air and guess what? No "CRASHING PROBLEM" whatsoever!

Get a clue!
!