Hardware Canucks

Hardware Canucks (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/)
-   Video Cards (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/video-cards/)
-   -   Is my E6400 @3.1Ghz Holding my Gaming Back?! (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/video-cards/6402-my-e6400-3-1ghz-holding-my-gaming-back.html)

bushwickbill April 29, 2008 07:35 PM

Is my E6400 @3.1Ghz Holding my Gaming Back?!
 
I bought this C2D E6400 Last January And I have been slowly adding Better things here and there. But When I first go above 3Ghz on my CPU I remember people saying I wouldn't see much more benefit trying to Overclock any higher??
Now this is a Quote from a review from OCC Website discussing a GTX"

The 9800GTX did the best here, but it is very evident that the CPU is holding this card back."

And they had a Quad Q6600 At 266*9!!
Here is the Article
http://www.overclockersclub.com/revi..._9800gtx/5.htm
If I were to try and Through a E8400 OR a Cheap Quad that will fit my ASUS P5B Vanilla, How much Gaming Performance will I really see?!?
Just wondering is it really worth it to purchase a new CPU or just hold out till my next MOBO and CPU and Case next Yearhttp://www.overclock.net/images/smilies/confused.gif
If I will only see only 10-15FPS increase then INMO it is not worth the hassle. I hardly do anything else besides Surfing and playing Games Now, So is it worth it guys or is there another upgrade that would serve me well??
Thanx as always for your Advicehttp://www.overclock.net/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

3.0charlie April 29, 2008 07:47 PM

Increase in FPS with an E6400 CPU change? Highly unlikely. Another upgrade to serve you well? How about another graphics card? You may be asking too much of that GTS 320Mb. What about a 8800GT, or the newer 8800GTS 512Mb? They are both very capable cards.

MpG April 29, 2008 08:55 PM

That quote is from the 3DMark06 benchmark page, and it's a valid comment because at stock settings (low res, no filters), that benchmark gets a high percentage of its score from the CPU. The fact is, the vast majority of games out there aren't nearly as dependent on the CPU, especially once you've got it clocking past 3.0 GHz, and there are VERY few games out yet that can legitimately use four cores.

In my own experience, the only game I've ever seen that actually suffered from having a CPU with only 2 cores was Supreme Commander, and even that was only on larger maps, against 5+ computer opponents, with each one having hundreds of units in operation at one time. There are a couple other games out there that can use four cores, but it's low usage, and dual-cores are still more than adequate unless you've got a serious multi-GPU setup.

So yeah... I'll second what Charlie said about the video card. With many recent games, especially at higher resolutions (especially if you've got a 24" monitor), 320MB of video memory just doesn't quite cut it anymore. Aside from being overall faster, the newer cards' 512MB of RAM is significant improvement as well.

Having said all that... feel free to clock that CPU higher anyway.:biggrin:

bushwickbill April 30, 2008 12:12 AM

Forgot to change my Sig, I got my 9800GTX two days ago. So basically hang on to my C2D for now? That is good news, Now I can save up more $$$ for my 'New' Rig next year!!
thanx guys

MpG April 30, 2008 02:06 AM

Heh, that's a whole different situation. I love getting new parts as much as the next person, but your rig is pretty solid at the moment. Save your cash, there's some halfway credible rumors hinting that there's some nice stuff coming out this summer in the videocard department. Might even fall within EVGA's step-up program if you're really lucky (just remember to register the card).

If you're determined to do something now, refine what you already have. Run a slew of game benchmarks as-is, pull another couple hundred MHz out of that CPU, and see how much improvement you get (or don't). Grab an aftermarket cooler on that 9800GTX and see if you're can't clock it a little higher.

tom.mullie April 30, 2008 09:26 AM

Your CPU shouldn't be holding you back at all. From what I've seen, its the clock speeds more than the # of cores that matter. So your 3.1GHz should be ample right now. If you have your heart set on a new CPU, the e8400 or e8500 seem to be the best gaming CPUs right now (excluding the qx9650 or 9770, which are absurd).

bushwickbill May 4, 2008 04:26 PM

Well at 3.1Ghz under Orthos load my temps are in the 55's. V.Core is at 1.325 in BIOS, CPU-Z shows 1.264 V.core.
I know I can get to 3.2Ghz, Haven't ventured beyond that as I had to bump the V.core up to 1.435 to get 3.2Ghz to run stable. Temps got into the 58-59's under Load. I am worried about setting the V.core to 1.5 in the BIOS, If it is too high what happens? Will it boot into windows but just have very high temps!?
I wouldn't mind seeing 3.4Ghz stable:) People were telling me to keep the temps below 60C if possible.
Thanx again for the help guys

MpG May 4, 2008 07:23 PM

Personally, I use 65 degrees and 1.45 Vcore as my cutoff points for the 65nm processors (like yours), and there are those who don't feel any problem with going to 70 degrees and 1.5 Vcore.

It's always easier to get into windows than it is to actually stay there and do stuff (w/o it crashing). If you set your Vcore too high, you'll first get excessive temperatures, and as you keep setting it higher and higher, you'll eventually manage to damage the processor. The point at which this actually happens isn't particularly well-defined, unfortunately.

Personally, the best I can offer is that I have yet to hear of even ONE case where someone actually ruined a recent processor chip with less than 1.5 Vcore (for other reasons, sure, but not from Vcore) and that the chips are HARD to kill. On air-cooling, you'll exceed 65 degrees at full-load long before your Vcore reaches dangerous levels.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:14 AM.