michael Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 I need to upgrade my graphics card, this means I also need to upgrade my motherboard, CPU and memory to suit a move from AGP > PCI-E. The machine is only used for gaming and I've always been an Intel chap, that's not to say I wouldn't swap to AMD if it was the best option. My budget can't extend to the "Extreme" versions sadly so I'm considering these two: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700* 4x 2.66 GHz 2x 4MB Cache 1066MHz FSB or Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 2x 3.0GHz 4MB Cache 1333MHz FSB Both come in around the same price. I currently only play BF2, GTR2 and Live for Speed, I want to expand this to Quake Wars and a few other newer FPS games when they arrive. Or do I just buy a PS3 / XBox / Wii....? *should read Q6600 - I screwed up, if I edit it will make replies look odd so I'll leave it in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daston Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Dont buy a console the PC will rape all consoles in terms of performace! I would go for the quad core. I have been toying on getting rid of my dual core and going to an intel chip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShamelessTT Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Ive got a Quad core! Just to put something straight....... its not 4 x 2.66, its 4 x 665 mhz. Its total bullshit.............you have 4 cores clocked lower, same goes for the Duel cores. The sum of these cores makes up your 2.66 ghz. (You'll see this in the bios as it boots up!) So the big advantage is multi threaded applicationss (just about anything these days) and assuming your OS can support / use the cores properly (anything above XP) there quite a bit faster. Also ideal for gaming.....i have my work / game PC with 4gig of ram and a Quad core etc, and its absolutely flys. I just bought a Wii, lol they rock! (Mainly to kick my g/fs arse at). Consoles are the best by far for 2 players on same system. Si Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daston Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Thats not strictly true if you run a bench mark you will see the quad core pisses all over the dual core (I have a dual core and am a big AMD fan). As soon as they get multi threaded applications it will own games. Plus PC tech is about next, next, next, next gen compaired to all this console "next gen" bull. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 The 2 x 4Mb Cache will be a big bonus. Depends on the apps and OS you're running of course. Not everything is written to take full advantage of multi processors. About this time last year I went for a Dual Core (o/c to 3Ghz utterly reliable with a decent fan), Asus P5WDH Deluxe board and 2Gb with a PCI-E nVidia 8600 card. It plays things like Bioshock with ease on Vista. I'd probably go Quad Core now though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daston Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 aye many mags/geeks are saying if it hasnt got 4 cores then dont bother with it. If you can hang on wait after xmas as prices will drop and Nvidia will have the new 9 series card out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShamelessTT Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Its bound to be faster, as in fairness you have twice as many cores......just requires the supporting HW / SF to really make full use of it i guess. To me its just a half ass way to inscrease processing power, lets just have more cpu's.....not exactly rocket science for the guy who came up with that. However if its the same price, you might aswell have it over a duel Hehe, always best to buy current for future proofing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daston Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 the problem they had was that they were reaching the limits of silicon and could get it to go much faster so it was either build a more cpu's on 1 motherboard (Asus have done this) or fit more CPU's into 1 chip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith C Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Ive got a Quad core! Just to put something straight....... its not 4 x 2.66, its 4 x 665 mhz. Er, yes it is. It's 4 cores each clocked at 2.66GHz. Anyway - to be quite honest, at this moment in time I'd go for the E6850. You're getting a higher clockspeed per core, and seeing as even new games often aren't yet making 'full' use of multi-core CPU's you will see more real-world benefit from a smaller number of higher clocked cores. Even Unreal Tournament 3 will only use 2 main threads, and while the devs have said that with more cores available some of the other minor activities will be run on separate threads, it's questionable whether that will be enough to counter the fact that the 2 main threads will be running (in your case) some 13% slower. In a year or so when your CPU might actually start to be a bottleneck, *then* you can decide to swap it out for a by then much cheaper quad unit. Or switch to AMD - the memory performance of AMD CPU's is still much, much faster than Intel ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorin Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Quad core. Dual core is gay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael Posted September 24, 2007 Author Share Posted September 24, 2007 Quad core. Dual core is gay. Finally! About time someone came along with some actual data to sway my choice No matter what I opt for it will be replaced with something better the week after, that's a given but I just want to make sure I get the best value for money / performance for a year or so. I'll be chucking 4GB of RAM at whatever I go for so I can spawn faster in BF2, hopefully it will help with other games too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith C Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Actually Michael, are you sure it's the Q6700 that's the same cost as the 6850, and not the Q6600? Anyway, there is an interesting article here that may be of interest to you. I personally don't go for overclocking, but you may be prepared to go down that route. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith C Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Extra memory may not be the best way to improve loading times. If you're running XP 32bit then it has a limit of less than 4GB anyway - I forget the specifics of the limitation though. Something to do with a single application only being able to see 2GB anyway or similar. There's also the aspect of system devices reserving address space. What might be a better bet could be investing in some Raptor drives if you don't already have them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael Posted September 24, 2007 Author Share Posted September 24, 2007 Actually Michael, are you sure it's the Q6700 that's the same cost as the 6850, and not the Q6600? Nope, I messed up It's the Q6600, I was looking at a dull price list and glued my eyes to the wrong bit. I'm aiming for something like this: http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=FS-005-OC But hoping to use my existing PSU, drives and misc gubbins to bring cost down, they are also generallly more expensive than my usual source, the case is £10 more for starters, it all adds up Anyway, there is an interesting article here that may be of interest to you. I personally don't go for overclocking, but you may be prepared to go down that route. Cheers, I'm not scared to overclock, I just haven't felt the need to with my current setup, will have a good read Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael Posted September 24, 2007 Author Share Posted September 24, 2007 Extra memory may not be the best way to improve loading times. If you're running XP 32bit then it has a limit of less than 4GB anyway - I forget the specifics of the limitation though. Something to do with a single application only being able to see 2GB anyway or similar. There's also the aspect of system devices reserving address space. What might be a better bet could be investing in some Raptor drives if you don't already have them. I've got raptors already, with the memory I started with 1GB, jumped to 2GB and then went to 4GB, the spawn time in BF2 leaped ahead when I went to 2GB and improved slightly with 4GB, it's PhotoShop that seems happier with the higher amount in but as I'll be going for newer memory 2GB might be suffiend to better the performance with my current 4GB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith C Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Seems like you've done all it's worth doing without spending silly money. I'd still go for 2Gb even with a new build, unless I was running 64bit Vista - and then I'd be having *much* bigger issues! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShamelessTT Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Hmm its appears i stand corrected on that one, its the way my bios was reporting it lol. Im running a Q6600, @2.54 ghz(over clocked), in bios its got "Intel ® Core 2 Quad CPU @ 2.40Ghz Frequency : 630 Mhz" (Anyone know what the 630 might be?, i had assumed thats the per core frequency) Then below its got my user clocking of 282 x 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daston Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 630 sounds like your RAM clock speed ie the speed that your cpu sends info to your RAM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robin Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 you can only run a thread on one core, you cant have it executing on multiple ones so unless you are running lots of programs or have multi-threaded programs a faster single core would beat a slower dual core. For games there arent any/many out there yet for multiple cores so just get the highest clock speed you can for games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamanC Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 The 6700 clocks very very well. If your going to OC then get the 6700 if not then get the quad core. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShamelessTT Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Also dont bother with the stock cooler, its gash on the quad cores. I put on a Zalman one and it took down my CPU temp to 32c on average (idle, which is how i spend most of my working time lol) to around about 45c when playing such as CS source. Compared to 45 idle and 75c in CS source before. Obviously mines overclocked so these temps are higher than normal. This one http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=HS-026-ZA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheefa Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Good thread Michael. I've been having probs with my system and am looking to upgrade. Was thinking of AMD AM2 6400 Dual Core CPU. Anyone tried this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daston Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 6400 isnt bad if you can try and get a FX62 as it will overclock well above 6400 levels and will save you a few £ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 I'd go for Quad's more and more apps will be able to use them properly soon, Supreme Commander is one that can already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supra steveo Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 i want to know where to start with building a custom PC but i want a top notch one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.