Is 2.2 Ghz processor enough for latest games?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
senthurpandian

senthurpandian

Distinguished
Nov 3, 2011
87
0
18,630
Hi,

I am using the below configuration. I am planning to upgrade my PC to only watch HD Movies and Latest Games in full HD and ultra graphics.

1. Please let me know whether my Motherboard and Processor is good enough to watch HD Movies and Latest Games.
1.a. I am expecting to play movies and games in 1920x1080 resolution
2. Also please let me know the difference I may experience (as a user) with ATI 6670 / ATI 6770 / ATI 6790 / GTX 550 (1 GB Graphics)
(Basically, I would like to go for a budget graphics which will play games well)

Current configuration:
Motherboard: Gigabyte 780G (onboard ati radeon HD3200)
Processor: AMD Athlon X2 4200+ (2.2 GHz)
RAM: 2GB + 1GB (667 Mhz)
Monitor: Samsung 17” sync master

Planning to upgrade to below components:
Samsung: 23” LED 1920x1080 support
Graphics: AMD HD 6790 or NVidia GTX 550 (1 GB)

Thanks in Advance.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
i understand it more than you try to understand yourself.
If he can afford to buy a gtx460 then what's going wrong even 965 BE is pretty faster for bf3 then why are you telling that low setting is better than high setting huh! And remember amd card has buggy drivers that's why your game is running blurry everyone tried to run bf3 at maxed out but some people aren't they decide high setting to enjoy game more.(understand)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
it was running blurry because it was at 720p, the game looked better and sharper with more detail when i played at 1080p with low settings, compared to 720p with high settings. i upgraded to a gtx 470 halfway through the beta and just to see what framerates i could reach compared to the 5670 i set it to 720p again at ultra settings, it still looked blurry. i never tested at low at 1080p but seeing as it was playable before i dont think there would be a visible difference between 40fps and 60fps.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


My Gaming RIG:
----------------
Intel i7 2600k | Asus Sabertooth P67 | Asus GTX 570 | 8G Corsair Vengeance 1600mhz DDR3 | 2TB WD HDD @ 6 Gbps | Corsair TX 750W PSU | CM HAF 912 chassis | Samsung 23" LED @ 1080p
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

that is a nice rig, shouldnt have any trouble running anything now for a couple years :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Your new rig looks good! Not only will that allow you to play about anything on its highest settings, but it will also give you some wiggle room when upgrading in the future.

Enjoy!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yeah, am not planning for a SLI. B'cos, I would be willing to upgrade in the late 2012 or 2013, at that time I believe that GTX 600 or GTX 700 series will rule. GTX570 SLI would be a crazy upgrade at that time :)

Correct me if I am wrong.

And, could you please tell me why 2500k is better than 2600k for gaming?

Thanks!

[fixed]My Gaming RIG:
----------------
Intel i7 2600k | Asus Sabertooth P67 | Asus GTX 570 | 8G Corsair Vengeance 1600mhz DDR3 | 2TB WD HDD @ 6 Gbps | Corsair TX 750W PSU | CM HAF 912 chassis | Samsung 23" LED @ 1080p[/fixed]
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
yes, you're right 2500k is better cause there is no huge difference between them the only difference are
1.100mhz better 2600k but won't help in games
2.2mb of cache increase so games will slightly a bit better than 2500k
3.hyperthreading technology which does not help in gamming
4.expensive than 2500k
therefore people choose 2500k with excellent overclocking same speed of 2600k and are cheaper they both have similar performance but 2500k is cheaper with excellent performance.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
And, could you please tell me why 2500k is better than 2600k for gaming?
Click to expand...

Check these benches out, scroll down near the bottom, the performance is near identical

the i5 isn't per se better compared to the i7 however the logic is that the i5 performs similar to the i7 in gaming aspects, and that the additional 100.00 spent on the i7 is not justifiable if your sole intent is to game.

I'm sure someone could give a more in depth answer, but that is they gist of the: i5 vs i7 cpu choice.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ya, I now understood the difference of 2500k and 2600k. But some of the games now are utilizing the hyperthreaded CPU. Some games like Battle Field 3 or the older GTA 4..

What I planned is to build a confidence level to not to upgrade mobo/cpu for the next 5 yrs down the line. But upgrading GPU alone, whenever it bottlenecks.

Believe i7 was the best choice? Do you accept?


Cheers!
Senthur

My Gaming RIG:
----------------
Intel i7 2600k | Asus Sabertooth P67 | Asus GTX 570 | 8G Corsair Vengeance 1600mhz DDR3 | 2TB WD HDD @ 6 Gbps | Corsair TX 750W PSU | CM HAF 912 chassis | Samsung 23" LED @ 1080p
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I do not accept . Yet it really doesn't matter, what matters is that you are content with what you have. Your rig will perform roughly equally with or without the i5 or the i7.

If you look at BF3 benches from toms hardware, the i7 performs roughly the same compared to other CPUs. Don't really know if gta 4 benefits from hyper threading (if it is like any other game than it doesn't)

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graphics-performance,3063-13.html

five years who knows, tech moves so damn fast...socket 1155 and its AMD counterpart may be dead by then.

Either way i7 or i5, your rig is a solid rig that will hopefully be adequate decent duration of time.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom