what's better a good dual core rig or a good quad core rig

[Shift]

I'm talking about in the long run, because I thought at this point people would just buy quad core since they are so cheap, but people are jumping on the 8400 when then Q6600 is almost the same price. How long will quad core to be effective? because I don't know whether or not I want to build a dual core rig or a quad core one. I want to play games but I also might want to download music or just have programs minimized. Can quads handle that now?

Any advice would be great.

[Waymon3X6]

If you can get the quad core. I believe most people are going for the duel cores because most games are only threaded to use 2 cores.

A quad core would be more future proof for upcoming games that can use all 4 cores, like Supreme Commander (even though thats already out).

Get the Q9300 instead of the Q6600 if you dont plan on overclocking.

[Shift]

If you can get the quad core. I believe most people are going for the duel cores because most games are only threaded to use 2 cores.

A quad core would be more future proof for upcoming games that can use all 4 cores, like Supreme Commander (even though thats already out).

Get the Q9300 instead of the Q6600 if you dont plan on overclocking.

right that's the answer I've been looking for. I'm looking into the Q9300, they have some for cheap as OEM. Is there a reason why the Q9300 aren't as good as the 6600 for overclocking?

Also I'm looking into purchasing a video card a 8800GTS. Will there be anything good soon? Are the 98's worth to look into (I heard not).

[itznfb]

Q9300 is a rip off to be honest. you're stuck with a 7.5 multi, which gets you nowhere. you also have 1/2 the cache. for $50 more than a Q6600.

IMO, Q9450 or Q6600 are the way to go.

[jbartlett323]

yeah go with a q6600... microcenter has em for $189 and frys HAD them for $199

[Shift]

ok so i guess the Q6600 it is.

also what about the 8800GTS? I'm thinking about purchasing one for real cheap, but I'm wondering if it's still worth it. I want to play it on a 21 or 22 inch monitor.

[itznfb]

ok so i guess the Q6600 it is.

also what about the 8800GTS? I'm thinking about purchasing one for real cheap, but I'm wondering if it's still worth it. I want to play it on a 21 or 22 inch monitor.

i'd pick up a (G92) or a 8800GT over an old 8800GTS, unless you get it real cheap

[Shift]

itznfb;2885744']i'd pick up a (G92) or a 8800GT over an old 8800GTS, unless you get it real cheap

$160 good?

so question, is the 8800GT better than the GTS? then I don't know why the GTS is more expensive, unless the 640mb has to do something with it

also which cards use G92?

appreciate the help guys thank you

[socket462]

itznfb;2885744']i'd pick up a (G92) or a 8800GT over an old 8800GTS, unless you get it real cheap

There is a newer- G92 based GTS with 512 MB ram-- I have that card and it simply rocks-- much higher performer than the 3870 or the 8800GT.

BUT- for the money-- The 9800 GTX is slightly higher in performance at about the same price-- 300-350 dollars.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2280470,00.asp

[keiths]

I'd go for the the q6600 if it weren't for the power usage(~+40 watts for q6600 vs q9300/e8400) and some specific applications(emulators, present games) that will benefit from the 4+GHz the e8400 can do.

[AliG]

To be quite honest with you, the smartest move for the long run would be to hold your money. With nehalem coming out and the socket changing along with mandatory ddr3 ram, it wouldn't be wise to spend your money on current hardware. There's no guarantee a nehalem board will support a sandy bridge cpu, but seeing how long lga775 has lasted, there's a good chance. That, and a quadcore nehalem will be a lot more future proof then anything out today

[AliG]

Just my thoughts on the topic, but I wouldn't be surprised if plenty of others say the same. With a complete new set of sockets (not to mention ddr3 becoming mainstream within a year or slightly more) coming out soon (lga1366 and am3), it just doesn't make sense to upgrade for the long run as you won't be able to do any small upgrades along the way

[Shift]

itznfb;2885744']i'd pick up a (G92) or a 8800GT over an old 8800GTS, unless you get it real cheap


Just my thoughts on the topic, but I wouldn't be surprised if plenty of others say the same. With a complete new set of sockets (not to mention ddr3 becoming mainstream within a year or slightly more) coming out soon (lga1366 and am3), it just doesn't make sense to upgrade for the long run as you won't be able to do any small upgrades along the way

that is true, but I'd be doing the same thing by waiting for that hardware to get cheap and that would take a looooong time. I'll buy the LGA775 right now. There will always be a demand for LGA775 even after lga1366.

my only problem right now is the GPU. Should I go 8800GTS for $160 and SLI it later, or buy a 8800GT? uggh so confused :( I;ve seen the 9800GTX but I'm not ready to spend over $300 on a GPU

[itznfb]

8800gts for $160... new or used? 320MB or 640MB?

you can get a new 8800gts 320mb on newegg for like $140

personally, i'm just sticking with my 8800gts 640 until DDR3 prices come down and i switch platforms, then i'll probably build an sli rig.

[Shift]

itznfb;2885851']8800gts for $160... new or used? 320MB or 640MB?

you can get a new 8800gts 320mb on newegg for like $140

personally, i'm just sticking with my 8800gts 640 until DDR3 prices come down and i switch platforms, then i'll probably build an sli rig.
$160 for 640mb used with no warranty :/

I'm considering getting a 8800GT, but is it worth it and better than a 640mb GTS?

[panfist]

I'm going to have to disagree with everyone about the processor. Supreme Commander can't fully utilize 4 cores. Sure, it can split the game up into 4 threads, but only one core ever gets maxed out. Even with a dual core system...only one core ever gets maxed out. Trust me on this one...Supreme Commander is pretty much the only game I play.

Strictly for gaming, the e8400 is a better option because it can overclock faster, has a higher stock clock speed, and uses much less power than a Q6600. The ONLY games out there that run better on a Q6600 than an E8400 are those based on unreal tournament 3, and those games run pretty smoothly in general.

[Polizei]

I'm going to have to disagree with everyone about the processor. Supreme Commander can't fully utilize 4 cores. Sure, it can split the game up into 4 threads, but only one core ever gets maxed out. Even with a dual core system...only one core ever gets maxed out. Trust me on this one...Supreme Commander is pretty much the only game I play.

Strictly for gaming, the e8400 is a better option because it can overclock faster, has a higher stock clock speed, and uses much less power than a Q6600. The ONLY games out there that run better on a Q6600 than an E8400 are those based on unreal tournament 3, and those games run pretty smoothly in general.

Agree.

By today's standards, I've got an "old" E6600 that I bought on release day. It has seen 3.5GHz, but I run it at 3.3GHz daily. I have run AdAware while playing Battlefield 2 and wasn't lagged in game. I have downloaded game patches and videos while playing BF2 and haven't been slowed down.

A dual core will be fine for you now. Not to mention, they're cheaper, so that saves you money for when you want Nehalem. ;)

[Shift]

ok new question 8800gtx or 8800 gt

i know it mostly depends on monitor resolution (which I'm not familiar with at all)

I read that 8800GT is good now but I don't want to keep upgrading and just want a good card for a while. 8800GTX for $250 or 8800GT for $150 and SLI later, what seems better for you guys?

also what resolution do most go you guys game in? I've had a 19inch regular LCD with a computer with int. graphics (brutal I know) and can't play alot of games. I want probably a 21inch or 22 inch wide screen, so which GPU one would be better? I assume the GTX right? Thank you for the help.

[Waymon3X6]

How about a 8800GTS 512mb?

[Polizei]

ok new question 8800gtx or 8800 gt

i know it mostly depends on monitor resolution (which I'm not familiar with at all)

I read that 8800GT is good now but I don't want to keep upgrading and just want a good card for a while. 8800GTX for $250 or 8800GT for $150 and SLI later, what seems better for you guys?

also what resolution do most go you guys game in? I've had a 19inch regular LCD with a computer with int. graphics (brutal I know) and can't play alot of games. I want probably a 21inch or 22 inch wide screen, so which GPU one would be better? I assume the GTX right? Thank you for the help.

I say GTX. Higher memory bandwidth and more memory. For $150, you are probably looking at the 256MB 8800GT and not the 512MB.

As for monitor resolutions, a 21" or 22" usually runs at 1680x1050. Your 19" regular monitor most likely runs at 1280x1024.

[Shift]

I say GTX. Higher memory bandwidth and more memory. For $150, you are probably looking at the 256MB 8800GT and not the 512MB.

As for monitor resolutions, a 21" or 22" usually runs at 1680x1050. Your 19" regular monitor most likely runs at 1280x1024.

It's a used 512 8800GT for $150. Yeah you're right it runs at 1280X1050

so for 1680X1050 a GTX would be better right, or could a GT handle that?

EDIT: WTF the 8800GT was only behind like 8 frames on 1680X1050 in Quake Wars in VRs reviews... really I thought the GTX would do much better?

[AliG]

If you won't be buying a nehalem system, at least do yourself the favor of buying an rv770 card (4870), they come out in mid q2 or whenever gddr5 is ready, and should come in a smidge higher than current 3870 pricing. That will last you probably a fair amount longer than even the 8800gt

[Polizei]

It's a used 512 8800GT for $150. Yeah you're right it runs at 1280X1050

so for 1680X1050 a GTX would be better right, or could a GT handle that?

EDIT: WTF the 8800GT was only behind like 8 frames on 1680X1050 in Quake Wars in VRs reviews... really I thought the GTX would do much better?

I max everything in BF2 and almost max everything in Stalker except AA, AF and stupid stuff like grass detail and get great framerates at 1680x1050. The card barely sweats it.

[Shift]

I max everything in BF2 and almost max everything in Stalker except AA, AF and stupid stuff like grass detail and get great framerates at 1680x1050. The card barely sweats it.

You know Polizei sometimes I want stuff to look good, but I'm not sure if it's worth the $100 premium over the GT to get the GTX. I want stuff to look good and keep the GPU for a while. Are two GTs in SLI better than a single GTX?

[B.E.E.F.]

The ATi HD3870 is a very good performer for its price.

Check it out.

[jcool]

As for G80 vs. G92, check out this Thread (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=177459). You can find some nice comparisons there, also check out the link to some testing I've done myself with a 8800GT and my trusty 8800GTS 640 in the 3rd to last post there (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2796066&postcount=17) :)

[Polizei]

You know Polizei sometimes I want stuff to look good, but I'm not sure if it's worth the $100 premium over the GT to get the GTX. I want stuff to look good and keep the GPU for a while. Are two GTs in SLI better than a single GTX?

I'm going to say yes, SLI 8800GT 512MB is better than a single GTX, but by how much? I have no idea.

Oh, I have an 8800GT, not a GTX if you didn't read my sig. ;) The GT is fine for what I do, considering I don't play UT3 or Crysis or anything like that.