As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
What part of a processor is relavent to gaming?
ghost_master2000
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So I'm looking to upgrade my current processor. I have a Pentium D 930. It's 3.0GHz stock, but I have it OCed to 3.3GHz (the highest I could get it without exceeding safe temperatures.) I didn't get much out of it with the OC, so I figure it's either my ram (667MHz DDR2) or my processsor that's limiting performance.
What shoudl I look for in a processor for gaming? FSB frequency? L2 cache size? what is important?
What shoudl I look for in a processor for gaming? FSB frequency? L2 cache size? what is important?
ghost_master2000 on
0
Posts
edit: oh wait you're on 775 right now. if you wait a couple months Nehalem will be released and 775 procs will get cheaper.
You didn't get much out of overclocking your current CPU because the NetBurst architecture performance doesn't scale linearly with clock speed because it has such deep pipelines. Your 10% overclock probably only netted you a 2-4% performance gain when it is even measurable.
Not every game takes good advantage of multithreading but Windows does. Even if your game is decidedly single threaded Windows will schedule other processes to use the rest of your CPUs.
my power supply is only 430W. think that might bottleneck anything?
so pretty much any core 2 duo will probably be better than what I have?
While the Core 2s are two actual processors on the same chip, similar to AMD
See, the inefficiency comes from the fact that on a Pentium D the two processors can't communicate together AND with the system bus at the same time, and both processors couldn't talk to the system bus at the same time, essentially the bus had to go back and forth from one core, then back to the station, then out again to the second core, and so on and so forth.... Witht he Core 2 design they built a huge interstate with several off ramps for the busses to take, thus increasing efficiency...
I use a Pentium D in my server, but my Gaming and HTPC are both Q6700s (YAY Intel Retail Edge, 250 bundle, and YAY Intel Conference and contests....)
Movie Collection
Foody Things
Holy shit! Sony's new techno toy!
Wii Friend code: 1445 3205 3057 5295
Just as an addition to that, that's also how current Intel quad core processors work. They're two dual core processors duct taped together. (essentially)
Whilst the AMD quad core processors are true quad core, so no needing to communicate on the bus.
Of course, at the moment Intel processors simply have raw speed over AMD's efficiency.
---
I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
Movie Collection
Foody Things
Holy shit! Sony's new techno toy!
Wii Friend code: 1445 3205 3057 5295
For gamers pointless, but as an IT Manager I see it being good for business If you can get everything into a single chip you reduce costs by quite a lot.
When I buy parts to build machines at work I don't go for the absolute cheapest but I do go for quite cheap.
I'm now in the process of doing a transition to dual core machines at work. If I can get a machine that is say tri-core with one of those cores being a graphics processor then cool, it'll likely cost less than a dual-core+onboard gpu.
---
I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
The inefficiencies also come from the fact that the Pentium D (and the Pentium 4 it was based on) had a really shitty architecture that was designed to have a high clock speed number (basically for PR) rather than actually have high performance. The Pentium 4/D would take as many as twenty clock cycles to perform some instructions that would take a Pentium 3/Athlon 64 about five.
When Intel designed the Core and Core 2 series, they basically threw the P4 work in the garbage and based them on the Pentium 3 and Pentium M.
The way I understand it, the Q6600 is more future proof, but the e8400/e8500 are better for today's software because not a lot outside of work-based applications (ie not games) make use of 4 cores. Basically, the e8's offer instant gratification and performance, whilst the Q6's will have less instant performance (but still decent) but will be better suited for tomorrow's applications and games.
Toms Hardware recently did a test of an Athlon 64 4000+ (single core) chip vs an Athlon X2 4200+ (dual core), the 4000+ actually having a slightly better clock speed. On older games and applications, the single core outperformed the dual core by a slight margin, but on newer games and applications (notably Crysis) the dual core, despite it's lower clock speed, had as much as a 50% advantage.
Basically, if you're set on getting a new proc now, I'd say go for the Q6600. Intel is changing socket type soon as said before so no matter what you get your upgrade options beyond that are basically limited to what is on the market now. Therefore, I'd say future proof as much as possible to hold off the next upgrade as long as possible.
how soon is intel switching away from socket 775? I want to know if I should bother waiting for the price drop or just get it now.
And they use Socket 775, right?
Honestly, I see the world in black and white on the subject. You either:
A) Save money cause you're really cheap. Buy the current generation now before its inventories are sold out, as price cuts probably won't be too much more than they already are, and the longer you wait the more chance people sell out of their stock in anticipation of the next gen.
I'm not being negative towards cheapness here. I'm just saying that if you're not specifically trying to build a cheap computer, I don't understand buying RIGHT before a major architecture change like this.
Edit: to address the OP further...FSB frequency and L2 caching will both help gaming. However, FSB frequency will be MUCH more noticeable in gaming than normal day-to-day activities. However, larger L2 caches will help EVERYTHING, as being able to cache more things will give performance gains on normal applications. Usually your normal activities will be more limited by disk access than by your memory access.
PSN: TheScrublet
Tofu wrote: Here be Littleboots, destroyer of threads and master of drunkposting.
I'll probably pick up the e8500 just so I can play games without lag.
Just food for thought. I don't overclock myself.
Pretty much. The stock E8500 runs at 3.1GHz, and while ymmv, you can expect to get about 3.6GHz out of the E8400 on stock air (and probably even stock voltage). The scary, hardcore guys have been hitting 4.2GHz and 4.4GHz (sweet merciful fuck) with the E8400 without resorting to water cooling, which is amazing -- I thought 50% overclocks were a thing of the past.
So I'm saying bumping the E8400 up to E8500 levels will be a cakewalk. There might literally be cake.
Again, there's no mid or lower level Nehalem coming soon.
The replacement of processors like the q6600 (65nm) with 45nm sucessors is generally being done with less performant (nerfed) processors. This might be because of lack of competition from AMD, or because they don't want to bring out stron competition for Nehalem.
So there's no good mid or lower level core2 coming neither.
No sense in waiting...