CPU choking GTX 295

[Maverickman]

My signature is below. I think my CPU is choking my GTX 295. I only have a low-end Core2 Duo and am thinking of getting a higher end quad core. I'm looking at the Q9650 which I can overclock. I'm thinking this CPU will waste the Core2 Duo in most games. Should I go for that Q9650 or get something even better? For now, the Core i7 is just too expensive to justify the cost.

Just OC it to 4.0...

The 9650 is fast though, faster than my q6600. What mobo?

[ChrisRay]

Personally. I wouldn't bother. Your CPU is fine.

[MUYA]

Originally Posted by Maverickman

My signature is below. I think my CPU is choking my GTX 295. I only have a low-end Core2 Duo and am thinking of getting a higher end quad core. I'm looking at the Q9650 which I can overclock. I'm thinking this CPU will waste the Core2 Duo in most games. Should I go for that Q9650 or get something even better? For now, the Core i7 is just too expensive to justify the cost.

I went from q6600@3Ghz to q9650@3.8GHz...

If you upgrade your CPU to Q9650, the only thing you will notice is your 3dMark score increase! Mine went up by 3XXX points (but who plays 3dmark2k6?)

Other things like games will .....scale up but not by much. I would say 10% at max at the 1920 by 1200 res etc

At least when I play Age of Conan, it feels a little bit faster but, not by much. I have not tried any other games...

[Maverickman]

Unfortunately, I can't get any more out of my E8500. It seems that 3.56 is the limit. More and more multi-threaded games are hitting the market, so the Core 2 Duos are definitely getting obsolete. It looks like the Q9650 is the way to go. I may try to overclock it to 3.5Ghz.

Just make sure your board likes that chip, but it is a great chip IMO.

[$n][pErMan]

Originally Posted by MUYA

I went from q6600@3Ghz to q9650@3.8GHz...

If you upgrade your CPU to Q9650, the only thing you will notice is your 3dMark score increase! Mine went up by 3XXX points (but who plays 3dmark2k6?)

Other things like games will .....scale up but not by much. I would say 10% at max at the 1920 by 1200 res etc

At least when I play Age of Conan, it feels a little bit faster but, not by much. I have not tried any other games...

And sadly 3.8Ghz is not a given... otherwise id buy that CPU

[MUYA]

Originally Posted by $n][pErMan

And sadly 3.8Ghz is not a given... otherwise id buy that CPU

From what I have read at xtremesystem, the q9650 are a given for at least what i have managed. If you have a decent mobo, you can get them to 4ghz!

My mobo is x38 chipset and from what I have read over there, the x38 mobos are 45 nm quad cpu limited.

Some guys with p45 mobos are getting past 4ghz!!!

[Maverickman]

The Q9650 is the way to go; however, I'm thinking of getting a Core i7 system instead. The Core i7 920 looks great. I've heard that you can get that up to 4GHz with the right cooling!

[boredgunner]

Originally Posted by Maverickman

The Q9650 is the way to go; however, I'm thinking of getting a Core i7 system instead. The Core i7 920 looks great. I've heard that you can get that up to 4GHz with the right cooling!

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=449593

^^4.5 ghz on air. He did a good job on that one

[Ancient76]

Originally Posted by Maverickman

Unfortunately, I can't get any more out of my E8500. It seems that 3.56 is the limit. More and more multi-threaded games are hitting the market, so the Core 2 Duos are definitely getting obsolete. It looks like the Q9650 is the way to go. I may try to overclock it to 3.5Ghz.

What multi-threaded games?

CPU scaling with GTX 295 - http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=807&p=16

However there are a few interesting things worth noting. First of all the Core 2 Duo processors continued to fair very well, and we did not see them being dominated by the quad-core parts as much as we had expected. Although there were a few games such as Far Cry 2 that really saw that Core 2 Quad and even Phenom II X4 processors really take charge, the Core 2 Duo’s did manage to hang in there and even win a few tests.

The Phenom II X4 series was a little disappointing if we are honest, as these new processors really struggled to compete with the Core 2 Quad series when paired with the ultra high-speed GeForce GTX 295 graphics card. That said, we cannot compare the Phenom II X4 940 directly to the Core 2 Quad Q9650, despite the fact that they both work at 3.0GHz, as the Intel processor costs a little over $100 US less.

Actually, while we may have been a little disappointed with the Phenom II X4 series, it does start to make a lot of sense when you look at the 2560x1600 performance. The Phenom II X4 940 was just 4fps slower than the Core i7 series in Company of Heroes at 2560x1600, 3fps in Crysis Warhead, 1fps in Far Cry 2, 1fps in Unreal Tournament 3, 5fps in World in Conflict, with the biggest upset being a 14fps loss in Left 4 Dead, while the Fallout 3 performance was identical.

Ideally, those planning on gaming with a $500 US graphics card capable of smooth gameplay at 2560x1600 with full in game graphics enabled, are likely going to do so. Therefore the Phenom II X4 940 does make sense, as it is able to almost match the performance of the world’s fastest processors. So then rather than spending $340 US on a Core 2 Quad Q9650, or $560 US for a Core i7 940 processor, why not just buy the Phenom II X4 940 for $230 US?

The answer is simple, because you can still buy the Core 2 Duo E8400 for $160 US, and at that price it was able to match the Phenom II X4 940 every step of the way. In fact, the E8400 was faster at 2560x1600 in Company of Heroes, Crysis Warhead, Left 4 Dead, and World in Conflict, while the Unreal Tournament 3 performance was a dead heat. In fact, the E8400 was only slower than the Phenom II X4 940 in Fallout 3 and Far Cry 2.

[bob saget]

Originally Posted by boredgunner

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=449593

^^4.5 ghz on air. He did a good job on that one

is that jakup? with like -50degrees?