Cpu For Gaming 2 or 4 cores?

Ronan.c

i want to build a pc for gaming. probably wow and CS. i dont know much about processors and im stumped at which is better quad or duo. im looking theses two processors.

http://www.pixmania.ie/ie/uk/526053/art/intel/core-2-quad-q6600-2-4-ghz.html#tech-specs

http://www.pixmania.ie/ie/uk/728234/art/intel/core-2-duo-e8500-3-16-ghz.html

Which would be best? i wont be running many apllications at the same time. at most itunes +wow+ firefox. probably 1 graphics card not two
Please give a reason for your choice, as far as i know wow is now updated to make use of multiple cores.if you could suggest any other proccesors 100-200 euro that would be great.

StopNotWorking

Everything is going quad-core. I would only recommend a dual-core to someone who is building/buying a budget machine.

Lots of games are being optomised for quad-cores. Look at GTAIV for example. You can barely play that horrible game on a dual-core!

Either way for gaming you should be looking at the GPU not the CPU. I have a dual-core at 3Ghz at the moment and I am trying to decide between a gym membership or a quad-core. Either way I know that I will eventually end up with a quad-core.

mus3

Don't forget about AMD! Everyone seems to have these days
For around that price, the AMD Phemon II X4 940 should be something to consider. Google for benchmarks, usually better than both those processers, here are a couple:
http://www.impulsegamer.com/hardwareamdphenomii.html
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3512&p=8

I know nothing about WoW, but you should be able to find comparisons easily enough!

StopNotWorking

I was going to recommend a phenom 720+ 4870. To me thats a great combo. It constantly slips my mind though because I keep thinking people are asking for upgrade suggestions, not full builds..

Effluo

StopNotWorking wrote: »

Everything is going quad-core. I would only recommend a dual-core to someone who is building/buying a budget machine.

Lots of games are being optomised for quad-cores. Look at GTAIV for example. You can barely play that horrible game on a dual-core!

Either way for gaming you should be looking at the GPU not the CPU. I have a dual-core at 3Ghz at the moment and I am trying to decide between a gym membership or a quad-core. Either way I know that I will eventually end up with a quad-core.

eh.......
Take the gym membership!

There are not lots of games using more than two cores and it's due to stay that way for quite some time!

Look at this!!! http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/info/faq/technology.html

both those processors and that graphics card would be huge overkill, man you could get a pc for maybe even less than E400 that would run those games perfectly!!!

Don't go throwing away your money on stuff you don't need.
Also if you're building a pc hardwareversand.de is generally the cheapest place in europe so check it out.
You should probably look at the last few pages of the sticky at the top of this forum "Guide to the Budget Gaming PC" there have been some new builds recently posted on it for around E500 which would be much more than enough to run your games

cherryghost

i still think a quad core is overkill these days. minimum specs on new games are still P4 2.4-3.2 and i that wont change much until the next gen consoles are released.

Solitaire

GTA4 is a dualie-killer (CPU-bound 39fps@1280*1024 with a 3.33GHz E5200) but only becuase its a horribly inefficient console port. Rockstar seems to have a patent on horrifically buggy and inefficient ports; I've heard Bethesda now has to pay them the license fee for PC-raping ports

But WOW+some low-end desktop apps is a joke. Even a stock E5200 would laugh at that. If you were playing a hardcore game and wanted to run a heap of stuff in the background try a fast dualie or (better) a fast tricore. Quad is useless for gaming other than running something stupid like WOW + a real game + oh, say a full-blown server in the background. Or GTA4 :P

mus3

Effluo wrote: »

Look at this!!! http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/info/faq/technology.html

both those processors and that graphics card would be huge overkill, man you could get a pc for maybe even less than E400 that would run those games perfectly!!!

Haha, opps. I didn't realise that it was such an undemanding game! You can even play it on dial-up?! Crazy.
Although it makes sense when I think about it.

Ronan.c

Thanks everyone for the info.Im now thinking a 2.5 or 2.6 Ghz dual core. Your right i dont need to buy ott exspensive things i dont need and wont use to ther fullest.ill see if i can find a motherboard that will take a quad core so if i ever want to get a new quad core cpu, i can.

Also ill probably get a mother board that has one pci exspess board and doesnt support sli. it will keep things cheap and since wow does not require much in terms of graphics ill only need one fairly good graphics card.

i should probably start another thread.BUT
i would like to be able to plug a hd tv into the computer. is this just a simple case of finding a graphics card with a hdmi port on it?

bandit197

Ronan.c wrote: »

i would like to be able to plug a hd tv into the computer. is this just a simple case of finding a graphics card with a hdmi port on it?

You can get DVI (usually the connector on mid range GPU's) to HDMI converters. http://www.sanace.com/IT/images/dvi-hdmi.jpg
I use one, works perfectly, as far as I remember most graphics cards now come with a converter supplied.
Another option is to get a DVI to HDMI cable. Obviously a HDMI port on the card is the logical
option but Ive only really seen them on top end cards.

Effluo

bandit197 wrote: »

You can get DVI (usually the connector on mid range GPU's) to HDMI converters. http://www.sanace.com/IT/images/dvi-hdmi.jpg
I use one, works perfectly, as far as I remember most graphics cards now come with a converter supplied.
Another option is to get a DVI to HDMI cable. Obviously a HDMI port on the card is the logical
option but Ive only really seen them on top end cards.

hdmi ports are on a lot of cheap cards....

Be wary that if you get a card with a dvi port you will need a cable running from your pc to the tv for the sound.
If you get a graphics card with a hdmi port then you won't need this extra cable

BaconZombie

Most of the new ATI card come with a special DVI/HDMI adpt that will also carry sounds.

Effluo wrote: »

hdmi ports are on a lot of cheap cards....

Be wary that if you get a card with a dvi port you will need a cable running from your pc to the tv for the sound.
If you get a graphics card with a hdmi port then you won't need this extra cable

StopNotWorking

You'll need Vista for the HDMI+ Audio off ATI cards. They don't have XP drivers for the HD audio built onto the GPU.

Every time I boot up my machine I get greeted with driver install prompts for that audio.

Solitaire

StopNotWorking wrote:

You'll need Vista for the HDMI+ Audio off ATI cards. They don't have XP drivers for the HD audio built onto the GPU.

Err... here?

StopNotWorking

They didn't work for me

Tried them days after I got the new machine up and running, I wasn;t getting audio when I used the hdmi on the big telly so I looked for drivers, they installed but it didn't work and the prompts didnt even go away..

EDIT: Maybe its because I have an x2 card? I tried swapping the connection to other ports on the card since I heard HDMI only works on 2/4 ports..

Solitaire

Did you install the Microsoft UAA Driver For XP first? Otherwise neither the Catalyst nor Realtek drivers will make one whit of difference... "mystery driverless device in devmanager" is a very common symptom of such, try choosing automatic search the next time the balloon pops up looking for the missing driver and if that doesn't work then Microsoft Update that biatch and reinstall the UAA and the hotfix for it (heard there was a vital one lurking somewhere). And then check to make sure the corresponding device is the only active/default sound device. Make sure to disable onboard sound in the BIOS!