Best gaming Core 2 processor

antivenom · Post by **antivenom** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 8:43 am

Hey, all I was wondering is what, in your opinions, is the best intel core 2 processor for a heavy gaming build? My current system was built as a budgeted light gaming system and I bought my Q6600 simply because it was a great deal.

mkk · Post by **mkk** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 9:52 am

I'll have to say almost unfortunately the Q6600 is still a good option, as most of Intels later quad models have been relatively weak versions. On the up side is that more games are getting able to take advantage of multiple cores, so that it's finally worth something for games to have a quad over a higher clocked duo. In your position I would get a better cooler like a HR-01 Plus with a low noise fan and overclock a bit.

jhhoffma · Post by **jhhoffma** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 9:58 am

Yeah, I wouldn't bother upgrading that CPU. It's a little power hungry, but perfectly adequate for the task. A GPU upgrade will definitely do more for gaming.

shleepy · Post by **shleepy** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 3:27 pm

Just because nobody's answered the question, per se - I'd say that's probably E8600, since the the quad-cores usually don't benefit from the extra 2 cores in the majority of games (with UT3 being an exception, from what I remember). I would imagine that the QX9770 is roughly the same, but it's also quite a bit more expensive.

But as every said - don't bother upgrading. Q6600 is still quite a decent gaming CPU.

thejamppa · Post by **thejamppa** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 3:48 pm

Yeah, putting Q6600 @ 3,0 Ghz is not a problem any half-decent motherboard. Its very good processor and not really beneficial to change.

and the only game I know that actually benefits from Quad core is Supreme Commander. However gaming industry is slowly moving in quad support but its not that easy transition so good Dual core will be a gamer choice.

But with motherboard and CPU you have, don't waiste your money, keep 'em and if you need to overclock them bit.

antivenom · Post by **antivenom** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:12 am

mkk wrote:I'll have to say almost unfortunately the Q6600 is still a good option, as most of Intels later quad models have been relatively weak versions. On the up side is that more games are getting able to take advantage of multiple cores, so that it's finally worth something for games to have a quad over a higher clocked duo. In your position I would get a better cooler like a HR-01 Plus with a low noise fan and overclock a bit.

I've upgraded my heatink to the Xigmatek S-1283 and my core temperatures range from 28-36Â°C at idle but haven't tested with load yet. So I might look into overclocking it now. Thanks for the replies guys

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:07 pm

that just is not the best gaming processor.

it just isnt.

65nm and old. doesnt sound cutting edge to me eh?

first off, ghz and cache make for a fast gaming processor.

e8400 could be cranked to 3.8 rather easily and with less heat than a 6600 clocked lower than that.

There are like 2-3 decent games that could utilize 4 cores. Its a great chip, sure, but its harder to cool and costs more. and, it doesnt go faster for games.

eh.

SpeedEuphoria · Post by **SpeedEuphoria** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 7:25 am

If you want the best dual core its an E8600, E8500 is prob similar. My E8400 is almost as good as it would go to 4.5Ghz but I could not get it stable for long. You can max pretty much any dual core with that Xiggy heatsink as mine would just start to hit 60c with 1.45v in bios running 4.5Ghz, does 3.7-3.8 on stock voltage.

Now if you have good cooling the current Q9650's run about the same speed per voltage as my E8400(E0). Thats why I just picked up a quad, best of both worlds. I hope I have enough cooling to get to 4.3Ghz anyway. But to push the quads this high you really must have a Gigabyte UD3P motherboard as this is holding the fastest Q9650 world records currently of over 5Ghz.

GamingGod · Post by **GamingGod** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:57 pm

Yea but if you look at benchmarks cpu rarely helps you attain better frame rates. I would keep the q6600 and spend any extra money on a hard drive, SSD, or videocard.

antivenom · Post by **antivenom** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 3:19 pm

Thanks guys, I don't think I'll change my processor for a while yet then, but I'll probably change my graphics card in the near future.

Thanks again

Post by **CA_Steve** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 3:45 pm

A late reply

1. Only a few games make use of more than 2 cores as development using DirectX 9 and 10 is a pain in the ass for multi core. DirectX 11 is looking to solve this....but even if it comes out with Windows 7 in Fall 09, it'll take another year before there is significant game content that makes use of it. So, quad core for just gaming? Wait until 2H 2010.

2. All games require some CPU for work. With some, there is no benefit past 2.5GHz. For others, it's up to 3GHz. For a few, fps seems to go hand in hand with CPU GHz. Supposedly, DirectX 10 games use less CPU power than DirextX 9 because the CPU isn't involved in as many transactions. YMMV depending on the games you like to play.

My recommendation is to look at sites like pc game hardware and see if they've done a cpu benchmark for the games you are interested in.

lemmy · Post by **lemmy** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 7:20 pm

antivenom wrote:Thanks guys, I don't think I'll change my processor for a while yet then, but I'll probably change my graphics card in the near future.

Thanks again

Nice rig you have there. I wonder though if you would become CPU limited in changing your graphics card from your current model. There definitely are certain games that can be CPU limited. We all get the upgrade bug, but at what cost. Increase noise, heat output, power usage, frustrated tweaking bios and xml files. Ah the wonders of modern computing.

I used to have a link to a site that actually graphed out CPU/GPU combinations and the limits to performance depending on the game. At the moment I can't find it though.

antivenom · Post by **antivenom** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 1:31 am

lemmy wrote:
antivenom wrote:Thanks guys, I don't think I'll change my processor for a while yet then, but I'll probably change my graphics card in the near future.

Thanks again
Nice rig you have there. I wonder though if you would become CPU limited in changing your graphics card from your current model. There definitely are certain games that can be CPU limited. We all get the upgrade bug, but at what cost. Increase noise, heat output, power usage, frustrated tweaking bios and xml files. Ah the wonders of modern computing.

I used to have a link to a site that actually graphed out CPU/GPU combinations and the limits to performance depending on the game. At the moment I can't find it though.

Thank you very much

I built it with performance and cost in mind, and the Q6600 was a great deal at the time so I though why not? that should future proof me for a while. And as it turns out, many people have said the Q6600 is a good overclocking CPU which should make it last longer too.

If I upgrade my graphics card though, I'd like to stick to the 9 series so I can reuse my Accelero Twin Turbo, unless there's a way to fit the Twin Turbo on 200 series cards but I don't think you can.

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Sat Feb 07, 2009 8:39 pm

eh, depends on the game. cpu makes a large difference in a silent system as well. cpu's are easy to cool, if they bring you from 40fps to 44fps, thats a nice jump for not much heat at all.

e8500 is a good deal too. I havent seen an e8600 around. of course that's even better.

CPU makes a difference if you dont crank AA up to max on 1920x1200 or higher. If you keep it like I do at 2x and af at 4x, the cpu has more of an effect.

dont look at these retarded benching sites. I just cant stand their ill advice. They dont do thorough testing with lesser "rigs" of varying cpu's and mainstream gfx cards.