Any decent current gen dual core is just fine. Even a high end older gen would probably be alright for most games. It can really depend on what type/how new of games you're playing though.
You will have to give us a little bit more on what you are playing, what other components you have and what your standards/expactations are. But right now the cpu that is the top one (anything better wont give you any improvements) is the i5-2500k (but if you are not planning on ever overclocking any i5-2500 would be fine.
The go-to CPU is defiantly the i5-2500k, due to it's amazing ability to OC the crap out of it, and the best price to performance ratio. There is little benefit to the i7 as Hyperthreading isn't that beneficial to games.
i3 is also a really good chip, but it's nice to have the discreet cores instead.
AMD really has nothing that competes at the mid-high budget gaming builds. You'll want the i5.
i5-2500k. Quad core (games take advantage of this now). Plenty of cache, fast clocks, unlocked. Anything over this you really have to have some non gaming reasons to spend the extra dough.
Overall frequency is going to play a bit more into than the actual CPU core count ( although in some game engines and some desktop configurations both are important ). With that noted when going into multi GPU configurations both cores and frequency can be much bigger factors in regards to the performance you will see. I overall will agree that from an enthusiast budget standpoint the 2500K is an excellent choice.
Keep in mind though some game engines will vary more than others in regards to core balance and the benefits provided by improved archietecure and increased cache and more ( so if you vary up your game types alot i would advise try to get a faster chip than slower chip. If you are going for pure budget value the 2120 is hard to pass up at just a little over 125 dollars. If you are considering integrated performance and IPC performance then APUs from AMD offer fantastic performance for the cost and allow for additional scaling through crossfire. With that noted keep in mind that the IPC performance will be behind Intel.
I rock a i5 2500 and I play BF3 on ultra most evenings of the week :) Solid performance. If your into tweaking and modding I can't answer, but if that's the case, why would you ask?
@Baltimore: Agreed completely- sounds like you have a q6600? My e6600 (dual core version of your cpu) OC'd to 3.2GHz is enough to handle pretty much everything. It is starting to feel its age, but I find it hard to imagine needing anything much more powerful. Mostly comes down to the GPU
I too have a Q6600 from 2008, and it's still serving me well. Since most current games are designed to work on Xbox 360s with processors from 2004 and 512 MB of unified RAM, a 4 year old CPU and 4 GB RAM will still do most of what I need. Most of the ways a modern game might push things is in graphics, which are mostly handled by your video card. I have a GTX 460 that I bought last year, and this setup runs Skyrim at 1920x1200 with most detail settings maxed and the High Res texture pack installed at very smooth framerates everywhere except the more complicated urban environments.
I haven't tried Battlefield 3, Crysis 2, or The Witcher 2 yet, though, so your mileage may vary.
Still on my Intel q6600 and it still runs like a champ. One day i'll upgrade but i've still to find something that doesn't run great. Civ 5 is about the only thing that comes to mind that takes a noticeably long time to do something (ending my turn with a bunch of AI's far into the game).
This is going to sound crazy but my six year old Dell XPS 420 is still holding out strong when it comes to gaming. Specs below:
Intel 2.4 Quad Core CPU
6GB Ram (1033MHz)
NVidia GTX 8800
1TB 7200rpm Western Digital HDD
I can't believe that this thing is able to play Mass Effect 3, the Witcher 2 and some other games and still look pretty darn good.
That being said I do think it's time for an upgrade. So should one wait for ivy bridge or just jump in now?
Not so crazy, I'm still happy with my Intel Q6600. I recently upgraded the videocard to an ATI 6850, last years games run fine at 1366x768 with 2x or 4x AA. I'm using a 720p TV as a monitor, and sitting way back on a couch, so high dpi isn't an issue for me.
There are still CPU limited games out there, like GTA4 (unplayable) and LA Noire (better than GTA, but still rough).
I should also mention that I don't do ANY multiplayer (online or off), so I am unaware of any precision issues create by low dpi or hitchiness from quad vs dual core. If I am dying too often, I just turn down the difficulty!
if you're buying today, you can get a decent price on a Core I7 2nd gen Sandybridge and not have to worry for a while. If you have the cash, wait for Ivybridge.
But, make sure you don't skimp on your GPU at the expense of your CPU.
@jtavano: There is no point in buying an Ivy Bridge CPU for gaming. By the time a 2500k needs to be replaced, we'll be three die shrinks down the road and pushing nanotechnology.
Seriously, one of those will hold on for five years easy. They overclock like monsters and we still have very few quad core optimized games.
As you say, throw the money into the GPU. Keeping games in top form at 1920x1200 takes a fair amount of muscle.
Anything intel i5, and anything radeon 700 (meaning 6700, 7700, 6750, 7750 when they eventually have em) will get you nearly all of of gaming in its entirety.
For running three 1080p monitors or two 2560x1600 monitors, for running specialty cutting edge graphics modes like SSAO and nvidia 3D glasses, and for Battlefield 3, then you'd need an i7 and 6970/7900 or dual gfx cards, etc.
@jtavano: There is no point in buying an Ivy Bridge CPU for gaming. By the time a 2500k needs to be replaced, we'll be three die shrinks down the road and pushing nanotechnology.
Seriously, one of those will hold on for five years easy. They overclock like monsters and we still have very few quad core optimized games.
As you say, throw the money into the GPU. Keeping games in top form at 1920x1200 takes a fair amount of muscle.
AFAIK, CPUs can keep going until they fry themselves. I still have a couple of Pentium 4 machines running fine.
GPUs are a different story. My GTX260 right now is already being tried heavily by games like Skyrim and Saints Row 3. Just looking for a stable OC profile until the second-gen DX12 cards come out.
@boocreepyfootdoctor: You are vastly overestimating the computing power of some of those GPUs.
I have two 6950s and they do just well enough to push one 1920x1200 monitor @ 60FPS @ max in games like BF3, Crysis, STALKER, Metro, and so on. Trying to feed two 2560x1600s with that kind of power is asking for a slideshow.
The sweet spot for HD (1080p @ 16:9) gaming is currently one 6950/560 TI and a 2500k, soon to be replaced by the equivalent 7xxx and 6xx series once the price is more in line/the cards release for the latter.
The cards you mentioned (6750, 6770) are just rebranded 5xxx series for OEMs and I'd rather have someone call me up to do an interpretive dance of the game they are trying to play vs having them spend money on those. The 7750 is naturally a better card but I'd still argue against buying a new product that forces you to play on medium right out of the gate.
Any decent current gen dual core is just fine. Even a high end older gen would probably be alright for most games. It can really depend on what type/how new of games you're playing though.
You will have to give us a little bit more on what you are playing, what other components you have and what your standards/expactations are. But right now the cpu that is the top one (anything better wont give you any improvements) is the i5-2500k (but if you are not planning on ever overclocking any i5-2500 would be fine.
The go-to CPU is defiantly the i5-2500k, due to it's amazing ability to OC the crap out of it, and the best price to performance ratio. There is little benefit to the i7 as Hyperthreading isn't that beneficial to games.
i3 is also a really good chip, but it's nice to have the discreet cores instead.
AMD really has nothing that competes at the mid-high budget gaming builds. You'll want the i5.
i5-2500k. Quad core (games take advantage of this now). Plenty of cache, fast clocks, unlocked. Anything over this you really have to have some non gaming reasons to spend the extra dough.
Overall frequency is going to play a bit more into than the actual CPU core count ( although in some game engines and some desktop configurations both are important ). With that noted when going into multi GPU configurations both cores and frequency can be much bigger factors in regards to the performance you will see. I overall will agree that from an enthusiast budget standpoint the 2500K is an excellent choice.
Keep in mind though some game engines will vary more than others in regards to core balance and the benefits provided by improved archietecure and increased cache and more ( so if you vary up your game types alot i would advise try to get a faster chip than slower chip. If you are going for pure budget value the 2120 is hard to pass up at just a little over 125 dollars. If you are considering integrated performance and IPC performance then APUs from AMD offer fantastic performance for the cost and allow for additional scaling through crossfire. With that noted keep in mind that the IPC performance will be behind Intel.
Hope it helps.
I posted a response and a white picture showed up, this new forum software sucks lol.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106.html
that link should help you out.
@om1kron: LOL I can't even find my post with a white space much less the actual post.They are trying tho.
I5 2500K, Gaming dose not require hyper threading
I rock a i5 2500 and I play BF3 on ultra most evenings of the week :) Solid performance. If your into tweaking and modding I can't answer, but if that's the case, why would you ask?
This is going to sound crazy but my six year old Dell XPS 420 is still holding out strong when it comes to gaming. Specs below:
Intel 2.4 Quad Core CPU
6GB Ram (1033MHz)
NVidia GTX 8800
1TB 7200rpm Western Digital HDD
I can't believe that this thing is able to play Mass Effect 3, the Witcher 2 and some other games and still look pretty darn good.
That being said I do think it's time for an upgrade. So should one wait for ivy bridge or just jump in now?
@Baltimore: Agreed completely- sounds like you have a q6600? My e6600 (dual core version of your cpu) OC'd to 3.2GHz is enough to handle pretty much everything. It is starting to feel its age, but I find it hard to imagine needing anything much more powerful. Mostly comes down to the GPU
@Baltimore: Anything at or above a 2500 will do fine for years, Ivy Bridge or ortherwise. You're going to be GPU bound way faster then CPU bound.
I too have a Q6600 from 2008, and it's still serving me well. Since most current games are designed to work on Xbox 360s with processors from 2004 and 512 MB of unified RAM, a 4 year old CPU and 4 GB RAM will still do most of what I need. Most of the ways a modern game might push things is in graphics, which are mostly handled by your video card. I have a GTX 460 that I bought last year, and this setup runs Skyrim at 1920x1200 with most detail settings maxed and the High Res texture pack installed at very smooth framerates everywhere except the more complicated urban environments.
I haven't tried Battlefield 3, Crysis 2, or The Witcher 2 yet, though, so your mileage may vary.
I am running a non-Sandy Bridge i5, runs everything perfect, BF3 on ultra @ 60 FPS is no problem.
I doubt I'll need to upgrade my processor for at least another 2 years, I got this i5 in 2009!
Still on my Intel q6600 and it still runs like a champ. One day i'll upgrade but i've still to find something that doesn't run great. Civ 5 is about the only thing that comes to mind that takes a noticeably long time to do something (ending my turn with a bunch of AI's far into the game).
@Baltimore said:
Not so crazy, I'm still happy with my Intel Q6600. I recently upgraded the videocard to an ATI 6850, last years games run fine at 1366x768 with 2x or 4x AA. I'm using a 720p TV as a monitor, and sitting way back on a couch, so high dpi isn't an issue for me.
There are still CPU limited games out there, like GTA4 (unplayable) and LA Noire (better than GTA, but still rough).
I should also mention that I don't do ANY multiplayer (online or off), so I am unaware of any precision issues create by low dpi or hitchiness from quad vs dual core. If I am dying too often, I just turn down the difficulty!
If you're buying one now, i5-2500K will be fine.
As far as older CPUs go, the i7-920 is still in fine shape, as is the Core 2 Quad Q6600. Much older than that, and I think you might have some issues.
@Christoffer said:
This has virtually nothing to do with your CPU; most of it is due to your GPU.
if you're buying today, you can get a decent price on a Core I7 2nd gen Sandybridge and not have to worry for a while. If you have the cash, wait for Ivybridge.
But, make sure you don't skimp on your GPU at the expense of your CPU.
@jtavano: There is no point in buying an Ivy Bridge CPU for gaming. By the time a 2500k needs to be replaced, we'll be three die shrinks down the road and pushing nanotechnology.
Seriously, one of those will hold on for five years easy. They overclock like monsters and we still have very few quad core optimized games.
As you say, throw the money into the GPU. Keeping games in top form at 1920x1200 takes a fair amount of muscle.
@Mirado said:
AFAIK, CPUs can keep going until they fry themselves. I still have a couple of Pentium 4 machines running fine.
GPUs are a different story. My GTX260 right now is already being tried heavily by games like Skyrim and Saints Row 3. Just looking for a stable OC profile until the second-gen DX12 cards come out.
@boocreepyfootdoctor: You are vastly overestimating the computing power of some of those GPUs.
I have two 6950s and they do just well enough to push one 1920x1200 monitor @ 60FPS @ max in games like BF3, Crysis, STALKER, Metro, and so on. Trying to feed two 2560x1600s with that kind of power is asking for a slideshow.
The sweet spot for HD (1080p @ 16:9) gaming is currently one 6950/560 TI and a 2500k, soon to be replaced by the equivalent 7xxx and 6xx series once the price is more in line/the cards release for the latter.
The cards you mentioned (6750, 6770) are just rebranded 5xxx series for OEMs and I'd rather have someone call me up to do an interpretive dance of the game they are trying to play vs having them spend money on those. The 7750 is naturally a better card but I'd still argue against buying a new product that forces you to play on medium right out of the gate.