Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 95179	2008-11-27 00:56:00	Please check my Pc build	James281 (13409)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
723443	2008-11-27 19:09:00	Read this: archive.atomicmpc.com.au "In games, CPU speed is currently not important. GAMES. Not video encoding. The number one limiting factor in current generation games is the GPU. " As for prices dropping, by Jnauary? No. But its always worth waiting until you are ready before choosing components. Things change. All the time. Whatever you buy will be superceded in 5 minutes. Pctek,that is from 2005......LMAO,with a 7800GTX?....they didnt even have quad core then...LOL. battleneter is correct. 4Ghz Quads are required to saturate the card with data otherwise you lose FPS....so the statement CPU speed is not important is utter BS...	SolMiester (139)
723444	2008-11-27 19:22:00	Here (www.anandtech.com) is a nice article showing why Quads are preferable than Dual in gaming...check carefully the FPS increase @ same speed cpu but with extra cores..... Also 4870 bottlenecked @ 3ghz here (www.tweaktown.com) so 4870 w\ 4ghz here (www.tweaktown.com)	SolMiester (139)
723445	2008-11-27 19:51:00	I agree CPUs matter. But GPUs remain the most important component for gaming. Too many toaster shop PCs rave about the wonderful CPU it has - which has been paired with rubbish or integrated graphics. If you can afford both, great, but if not then a better card over the CPU is my recommendation.	pctek (84)
723446	2008-11-27 20:31:00	And if you do plan on OCing, then the Q6600 is your best bet. I've got mine running at 3.2Ghz at the moment, with very little fuss. I had it up to 3.5Ghz for a while, but that bluescreened far too often and I dropped my nuts. Mind you, there are some duals that you can clock up to 4Ghz, so that's not really that much of an argument. Having more cores makes me feel like a big man, I can laugh at the dual core owners here. So basically it boils down to penis envy. It's your call.	Thebananamonkey (7741)
723447	2008-11-27 20:35:00	Here (www.tomshardware.com) is another article (sorry, I know Toms?!), that shows GPU's from 9800GTX down to a lowly 6800GT with different speed CPU's.. It is obvious to all, that lower clocked CPU's cannot saturate the card with data to process, therefore you arent getting as much out of your card as is possible. Now while GPU's are more important with games is true, having a CPU powerful enough to feed enough data is also part of the balance. On top of that, games like SC and Alan Wake well also use the extra cores to control A1, physics as well as feeding the GPU over separate threads and cores.	SolMiester (139)
723448	2008-11-27 21:14:00	I wouldn't go for the quad core Q6600 chip. It's nice to have four cores, for sure, but if you're gaming you're still better off buying a higher-clocked dual core chip (the E8500 comes to mind). The real incentive is that the E8500 is part of Intel refresh of the Core chips (Penryn, 45nm), which use less power, run colder, are newer, make you feel better about yourself, etc. Unless you're hardcore into multithreaded apps and various forms of encoding / rendering / arbitrary parallel number crunching, I doubt you'll notice any benefits by going quad core just now. I've had this debate with a few people. I would've bought the Q6600 this time last year, but since the Penryn update my priorities shifted slightly. The new quad core chips (Q9450) are far too expensive to be reasonable any more, so you're better off waiting for Nehalem - and there's really no point in sticking to the older Q6600 unless it's a sentimental thing (which I'd completely understand). That is, of course, unless you plan on overclocking. Since the Q6600 uses 65nm and you said its better of for me waiting for the Nehalem, would you know around when that would be, im looking to build from now to january, and only wishing to spend around $300-$400.	James281 (13409)
723449	2008-11-27 22:03:00	65nm is fine. It's a little bit hotter, but don't worry about that. If you get a G0 stepping version of the Q6600 and a good aftermarket cooler you'll be able to get some really good clocks out of it. If you quadruple your budget for CPU, double it for RAM and triple it for MoBo, then you could go for Nehalem...	Thebananamonkey (7741)
723450	2008-11-27 22:33:00	I got some benchmarks from Tomsharware comparing what im looking to get, either a 4850 or 4870 and possible playing at 19200x1200 or 1680x1050. One question wat is Trilinear? ATI HD Radeon 4850(on left) ATI HD Radeon 4870(on right) Q3/2008 1920x1200, 4xAA, 8xAF, Very High Quality Assassins Creed 38.90 43.50 1920x1200, 4xAA, Game AF, max. Quality Call of Duty 4 75.40 94.70 1920x1200, 4xAA, 8xAF, max. Quality crysis 9.60 10.80 1920x1200, 4xAA, 8xAF, Very High Quality Quake wars 63.90 64.10 1920x1200, 4xAA, 8xAF, High Quality Half life 2 episode 2 101.10 100.20 1920x1200, 0xAA, Trilinear, Very HighQ Mass Effect 25.40 37.80 1920x1200, 8xAA, Game AF, Ultra QualityMicrosoft Flight Sim 26.40 25.60 1920x1200, Game AA, Game AF, Ultra QualityWorld in Conflict 25.80 34.80 1920x1200, 4xAA, 4xAF, Very High Quality Q3/2008 1680x1050, 4xAA, Game AF, max. Quality Assassins Creed 42.20 43.70 1680x1050, 4xAA, Game AF, max. Quality Call of Duty 4 87.80 110.10 1680x1050, 4xAA, 8xAF, max. Quality Crysis 11.30 13.40 1680x1050, 4xAA, 8xAF, Very High Quality Quake Wars 64.20 65.40 1680x1050, 4xAA, 8xAF, High Quality Half Life 2 Ep2 101.30 100.90 1680x1050, 0xAA, Trilinear, Very High QualityMass Effect 31.90 47.30 1680x1050, 8xAA, Game AF, Ultra QualityMic Flight sim2 26.30 25.60 1680x1050, Game AA, Game AF, Ultra QualityWorld in Conflict 28.90 37.70 1680x1050, 4xAA, 4xAF, Very High Quality	James281 (13409)
723451	2008-11-27 22:33:00	Theyre selling a nehalem based system down the road, its over 3k The mobo alone costs $700, and the CPU $640, thats ex GST So, you'll need more than $300-$400	Speedy Gonzales (78)
723452	2008-11-27 22:36:00	How many FPS is needed to have a smooth playing experience?	James281 (13409)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11