Support NeoGAF

[Wallach]

Those are run at 1280x1024 where more of a load is placed on the CPU and less on GPU. It's there to demonstrate the difference in power. 1600x1200 is another story.

Er, right. Meaning, comparing any two given CPUs in the same line, at the same frequencies, the one with the higher cache is the more powerful of the two processors. The more data you can fit in the L2, the more data that is available per cycle without having to access main memory.

Plus, moving forward I would much rather have a deeper L2 cache than to be able to hit a particular frequency that is "good enough" in the now; at some point, you cannot push your frequency higher without damaging the chip, but there's nothing you can do to increase your cache except buy an entirely new CPU. With nearly anything that is doing high amounts of comps that can't be offloaded (nearly any modern RTS or MMO, basically), your L2 is going to come into play and will affect your CPU performance.

 

[bee]

Er, right. Meaning, comparing any two given CPUs in the same line, at the same frequencies, the one with the higher cache is the more powerful of the two processors. The more data you can fit in the L2, the more data that is available per cycle without having to access main memory.

Plus, moving forward I would much rather have a deeper L2 cache than to be able to hit a particular frequency that is "good enough" in the now; at some point, you cannot push your frequency higher without damaging the chip, but there's nothing you can do to increase your cache except buy an entirely new CPU. With nearly anything that is doing high amounts of comps that can't be offloaded (nearly any modern RTS or MMO, basically), your L2 is going to come into play and will affect your CPU performance.

please show us modern benchmarks that prove this i.e 1680x1050 supreme commander for instance, otherwise its just meaningless

 

[Hazaro]

Er, right. Meaning, comparing any two given CPUs in the same line, at the same frequencies, the one with the higher cache is the more powerful of the two processors. The more data you can fit in the L2, the more data that is available per cycle without having to access main memory.

Plus, moving forward I would much rather have a deeper L2 cache than to be able to hit a particular frequency that is "good enough" in the now; at some point, you cannot push your frequency higher without damaging the chip, but there's nothing you can do to increase your cache except buy an entirely new CPU. With nearly anything that is doing high amounts of comps that can't be offloaded (nearly any modern RTS or MMO, basically), your L2 is going to come into play and will affect your CPU performance.

At 1600x1200 and up it's mostly GPU power unless it's one of those few CPU intensive games, which 3.8Ghz + 3MB of L2 is way more than enough. You can also look up 3MB vs 6MB cache in games, there's no big gains past 2MB, and even then it's about 5% MAX.

please show us modern benchmarks that prove this i.e 1680x1050 supreme commander for instance, otherwise its just meaningless

I would, but I sold the copy that came with my E6600 :lol

However, Supreme Commander is retardedly CPU dependent and is an exception.

 

[bee]

I would, but I sold the copy that came with my E6600 :lol

hehe i still have a e6600 at 3.6ghz, 2 years 2 months old now

 

[Hazaro]

hehe i still have a e6600 at 3.6ghz, 2 years 2 months old now

Mine didn't like above 3.4 much, had to shove volts in it to run 3.6

Sold it and bought a E7200 for just a little more. Tested my E8400, but sold it only took it up to 4550Mhz for a run.

Even with less cache the E7200 is faster because of the shrink. Difference is so slight though.

*Also did some part choosing for a Canadian friend yesterday. NCIX doesn't have the selection I thought it did, kinda sucks. Luckily newegg.ca is on it's way.

 

[Wallach]

please show us modern benchmarks that prove this i.e 1680x1050 supreme commander for instance, otherwise its just meaningless

I apologize that places like Tom's don't have benchmarks for something as obvious as "more powerful processor benches higher in CPU intensive application"; raising resolution in an RTS like Supreme Commander does not offload the work that makes it a stressful app on your CPU in the first place. But seriously, what does that matter, exactly? I don't know if you noticed, but - contrary to what this board at large may claim sometimes - new PC games and applications are in development. Regardless of how much more work we're able to offload to any GPU, CPU utilization is still extremely high, especially as more and more games are designed around multiple cores.

If you had few particular apps or games in mind, and your only goal for that entire PC was to hit your goal, I am absolutely sure you would be just as happy with a 3MB L2 as you would with a 6MB L2 if that particular software was not going to be largely affected by the slower CPU performance.

However, it doesn't change the fact that processor cache has a direct impact on CPU performance no matter what the processor is doing, because it's always faster to access cache than it is main memory. If you are not as concerned with upgrading the CPU sooner than later, then take the savings now and buy again earlier, by all means. But it really has no bearing on the fact that cache size is directly related to CPU performance, and any game or app that finds itself waiting on the CPU's next cycle will gain from that.

As it stands, pretty much every modern MMO (FFXI, WoW, EQ2, hell even LotRO) as well as RTS (Sup. Commander, Universe at War, Dawn of War) is going to see gains because of how much they ask of the CPU. This is only going up - games like Dawn of War 2, Endwar, StarCraft 2, WAR - because these types of games have no good way to move that work off the CPU at any resolution. Even now, other games are only just starting to become more GPU dependent to where the GPU is becoming the key factor to increasing performance. In some respects it's definitely getting better, as we've just recently seen nVidia finally get their PhysX drivers out the door which will allow those particular types of comps to be calculated on the GPU, but it's not there yet, and realistically it won't be for some time to come.

 

[DarthWoo]

I'm interested in buying that PSU that somebody mentioned, the Silencer 610, but if I'm reading things correctly, it wouldn't be compatible with this motherboard?

I'm not too familiar with the new standards in power connections, but wikipedia mentioned that EPS12V is incompatible with ATX devices, and now I'm confused. I'd like to decide whether I should get this one tonight, since the rebate offer ends soon.

 

[bee]

blah

you say a lot but produce nothing to back any of it up, cache helps in old mmo games? but any modern gpu destroys those games, who cares if you're getting 150 or 170fps

as i say my e6600@3.6 4mb cache is over 2 years old now and still performs excellently in all games, could you even produce meaningful benchmarks that shows an e8400 at the same speed outperforms it, i mean i'm sure it does but only by a few frames at most, at least at proper gaming settings

 

[DarthWoo]

I'm sorry if I make a lot of posts in here, but I really am kind of confused about the power source issue. I've had the order submit page sitting here for a while now, and just need to know how the compatibility works with the various PSUs and motherboards.

 

[DarthWoo]

I've looked at the other PC Power & Cooling brand PSUs, and I notice the other ones have both EPS12V and ATX12V as part of their spec. Is the lack of ATX12V in the one recommended here just an omission on Newegg's part, or is it really supposed to not be compatible?

 

[Tathanen]

I couldn't tell you, DarthWoo. I've been looking it up and it seems to not really say anywhere. That said, looking at the NewEgg reviews, no one mentions it, either. I have the feeling that ATX compatibility is just a given. Especially with the SLI and Crossfire mentioning on the packaging and whatnot, I doubt the power supply is meant only for server-style systems, which seems to be the whole point of EPS stuff. But I'm honestly only guessing.

 

[Hazaro]

A good PSU can save your system when something goes wrong with power, or thunderstorm, and not harm components by delivering steady power.

That said just get a Corsair 450W if you don't plan on upgrading or a Corsair 550W if you do. If you plan Xfire or SLi get a 750W, although 650W is probably fine.

 

[DarthWoo]

Thanks, though honestly I'm not sure what you mean by Crossfire or SLI right now, so I probably won't worry about those.

Edit: Ohh, that's the dual video card thing eh? Sounds nice, but would be sort of antithetical to the whole idea of a budget rig sadly.

 

[Wallach]

you say a lot but produce nothing to back any of it up, cache helps in old mmo games? but any modern gpu destroys those games, who cares if you're getting 150 or 170fps

as i say my e6600@3.6 4mb cache is over 2 years old now and still performs excellently in all games, could you even produce meaningful benchmarks that shows an e8400 at the same speed outperforms it, i mean i'm sure it does but only by a few frames at most, at least at proper gaming settings

So you have some kind of evidence to show me to the contrary, right? This basic function of CPUs that has been a factor of gaming performance for over a decade - which still held true less than 12 months ago - it's no longer a factor, so I'm sure you have some kind of benchmarks to show me.

And no, Hazaro claiming to have tried three different CPU and running all of four games doesn't really count.

 

[Blackface]

 

[Wallach]

I'm... not sure that really shows what you think it shows. Beyond the fact that not a single processor in that list is running at the same frequency at all.

 

[Blackface]

I'm... not sure that really shows what you think it shows. Beyond the fact that not a single processor in that list is running at the same frequency at all.

It shows overclocks. Easily obtainable overclocks by the CPU's standard.

For example, you can get 4.1GHZ on an E8400 as easy,if not easier in most cases then 3.6 with a Q6600. (especially with E0).

 

[Wallach]

It shows overclocks. Easily obtainable overclocks by the CPU's standard.

For example, you can get 4.1GHZ on an E8400 as easy, easier in most cases then 3.6 with a Q6600.

Oh. Yeah, quite a few of the C2Ds are excellent OCers. I thought you were commenting on what I said with it, ignore me.

 

[Jirotrom]

It shows overclocks. Easily obtainable overclocks by the CPU's standard.

For example, you can get 4.1GHZ on an E8400 as easy,if not easier in most cases then 3.6 with a Q6600. (especially with E0).

I cant... I'm at 3.92 at a 1.3V... and Id rather not push any more voltage. If I loosened up my ram timings I may be able to go up but I don't know if its worth that.

 

[Azzurri]

I'm looking to upgrade my 8800 GTX. Should I go with 2 4870 Xfire, a 4870X2, or wait for the 4870 1Gig version and buy another one later?

 

[Blackface]

I cant... I'm at 3.92 at a 1.3V... and Id rather not push any more voltage. If I loosened up my ram timings I may be able to go up but I don't know if its worth that.

What batch number and motherboard do you have. E8XXX series is known for it's amazing overclocks, however all CPU's have bad batches.

I am at 4.0Ghz at 1.24 volts, and I could probably go lower. People are getting 4.0+ under 1.9V with the new E0 steppings.

 

[Blackface]

I'm looking to upgrade my 8800 GTX. Should I go with 2 4870 Xfire, a 4870X2, or wait for the 4870 1Gig version and buy another one later?

What resolution monitor do you have.

 

[bee]

So you have some kind of evidence to show me to the contrary, right? This basic function of CPUs that has been a factor of gaming performance for over a decade - which still held true less than 12 months ago - it's no longer a factor, so I'm sure you have some kind of benchmarks to show me.

And no, Hazaro claiming to have tried three different CPU and running all of four games doesn't really count.

sure i do

wow at real gaming settings that extra cache that the e8400 has over the e7200 really makes a huge difference :rolleyes

back to my original point, people should recommend the $50 cheaper e7200 simply cos its the much better chip price/performance wise and cache means nothing at true gaming settings

 

[Jirotrom]

What batch number and motherboard do you have. E8XXX series is known for it's amazing overclocks, however all CPU's have bad batches.

I am at 4.0Ghz at 1.24 volts, and I could probably go lower. People are getting 4.0+ under 1.9V with the new E0 steppings.

I can get their but I'm pretty sure I have to open up the timings on my Ram, how much does the timings effect your overclock? I'm at 4449. Batch number is Q815A190,
I'll knock it up to 3.95 and run Prime again tonight.

 

[Azzurri]

What resolution monitor do you have.

Benq G2400WD 1920x1200 24"

 

[Jirotrom]

sure i do


wow at real gaming settings that extra cache that the e8400 has over the e7200 really makes a huge difference :rolleyes

back to my original point, people should recommend the $50 cheaper e7200 simply cos its the much better chip price/performance wise and cache means nothing at true gaming settings

I thought you were trying to show them at the same clocks... If we are talking about FPS before overclocks..

http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with-quad-core-processors/4

 

[Wallach]

The only thing your benches shows is the incredibly obvious - that whatever GPU is being used is always what the engine is waiting on. Yes, often times the GPU is what is holding back the engine from throwing the next frame, but it's not always the case, even as you increase resolution. It's pretty obvious that if you load the GPU up with high resolutions on top of high levels of AA and AF, it will often be what the engine is waiting on.

Modern games, even ones that are more GPU reliant like Crysis, are going to have much higher CPU utilization than a game like Call of Duty 2.

 

[bee]

I thought you were trying to show them at the same clocks... If we are talking about FPS before overclocks..

http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with-quad-core-processors/4

no i wasn't ..reread my posts

The only thing your benches shows is the incredibly obvious - that whatever GPU is being used is always what the engine is waiting on. Yes, often times the GPU is what is holding back the engine from throwing the next frame, but it's not always the case, even as you increase resolution. It's pretty obvious that if you load the GPU up with high resolutions on top of high levels of AA and AF, it will often be what the engine is waiting on.

Modern games, even ones that are more GPU reliant like Crysis, are going to have much higher CPU utilization than a game like Call of Duty 2.

so why would you buy a e8400 over a e7200 then exactly?

 

[SRG01]

For most games, cache size and performance often becomes negligible since it can be covered up by raw CPU speed. Hence why older Intel chips paired with a good cooler is still a good budget choice with acceptable performance.

However, cache size will matter for applications such as Photoshop and other more CPU-focused applications. But even then, GHz is a good compensator up to a certain point.

 

[Wallach]

so why would you buy a e8400 over a e7200 then exactly?]

Because it OCs farther, and any time the engine finds itself in a high-comp situation waiting on the CPU it will perform better? These situations do happen, even in mostly GPU-intensive games generally due to situations where heavy physics calculations are suddenly required. PhysX-enabled drivers may help with that, but it's not being used very widely.

 

[JoeMartin]

sure i do

<lots of graphs>

The only thing that shows is that the GPU was bottlenecking all the CPUs.

And yes, cache size matters in any demanding CPU application (which is 90% of games out there).

 

[bee]

Because it OCs farther, and any time the engine finds itself in a high-comp situation waiting on the CPU it will perform better? These situations do happen, even in mostly GPU-intensive games generally due to situations where heavy physics calculations are suddenly required. PhysX-enabled drivers may help with that, but it's not being used very widely.

have you looked at that crysis bench above? $50 for 0.6fps better minimum frame rate with a e8200@4.1 vs e7200@3.8

cache is meaningless in modern games played at realistic settings, hence save $50 and buy a e7200

The only thing that shows is that the GPU was bottlenecking all the CPUs.

And yes, cache size matters in any demanding CPU application (which is 90% of games out there).

but thats what i'm trying to show you see, all modern games are gpu bottlenecked so why buy a cpu for gaming that costs 40% more when your not gonna get any real world gains

 

[Blackface]

sure i do

wow at real gaming settings that extra cache that the e8400 has over the e7200 really makes a huge difference :rolleyes

back to my original point, people should recommend the $50 cheaper e7200 simply cos its the much better chip price/performance wise and cache means nothing at true gaming settings

So there are a few things wrong with your assumption.

1. You are comparing an E8200 with an E7200.

2. Those clocks for the E8200 and E7200 are high end clocks. Most people, and most batch numbers will not get 3.8ghz on air on most circumstances with an E7200. You would need a very good HSF, and fantastic air flow.

3. Getting an E7200 up to 3.8ghz, is like getting an E8400 up to 4.4+. With E0 stepping, higher then that.

You could also look at the stats this way. When the CPU is needed most.

As you can see, in games it makes a difference, and this is not even an E8400. In application use, the difference is minimal at best, but in games it can be up to %10(cache)

I think the E7200 is a fantastic CPU. I just built a rig with it for a friend. However, when the CPU is tested, there is a performance difference.

We are also talking about overclocks right now. High end overclocks. At stock speeds, the difference will be even more noticeable. And lets face it, 99 percent of gamers use stock speeds.

Lets also not talk about the heat and voltage issues with getting an E7200 close to 4ghz.

 

[bee]

As you can see, in games it makes a difference, and this is not even an E8400. In application use, the difference is minimal at best, but in games it can be up to %10

all i can see is benchmarks of games being played at non realistic settings that will always show cpu gains. thats why all the ones i pasted were showing realistic in game settings. considering all that ever gets recommended in this thread is e8400+4850 why would you play at 1024x768 no aa or af? and who cares if you get 120 or 140 fps

 

[Jirotrom]

all i can see is benchmarks of games being played at non realistic settings that will always show cpu gains. thats why all the ones i pasted were showing realistic in game settings. considering all that ever gets recommended in this thread is e8400+4850 why would you play at 1024x768 no aa or af? and who cares if you get 120 or 140 fps

Fuck it...

 

[Nemo]

When's the next pricedrop of processors going to hit?

 

[ColdDeckEd]

When's the next pricedrop of processors going to hit?

Mid October I think.

 

[Blackface]

all i can see is benchmarks of games being played at non realistic settings that will always show cpu gains. thats why all the ones i pasted were showing realistic in game settings. considering all that ever gets recommended in this thread is e8400+4850 why would you play at 1024x768 no aa or af? and who cares if you get 120 or 140 fps

You test CPU's on that resolution to show what the CPU is doing.

The higher the resolution the more GPU dependent the game becomes. As the resolution increases, the CPU matters less and less. However, when you game at a normal resolution such as 1680X1050, with a high end videocard, the CPU then starts to bottleneck the GPU. The higher then clock and cache on the CPU, the less of a bottleneck it becomes. This then allows the card to work more towards it's full potential, and increases your FPS.

I also want to point out everything you and I posted is comparing the E8200 to the E7200. The E8200 is clocked at 2.6ghz VS the E8400 at 3.0Ghz. Which is a big difference, especially when you plan to overclock. The E7200 is clocked at 2.5ghz.

Even with the E8200 and E7200 being so close together in clock speeds, the E8200 is still faster. It runs cooler, and it overclocks better. The reviewer could get the E8200 up to 4.1ghz, while getting the E7200 up to only 3.8. The 100mhz difference became a 300MHZ difference. Now imagine what the difference would be using an E8400.

Picking the E8400 is a no brainer. However, the E7200 is still a fantastic CPU that will play any game you toss at it on a budget rig easily.

The reason many people suggest an E8400 is because it's on sale a lot. I got mine for $140 on Ncix. Which is the same price that an E7200 is going for. You can find them on sale for $160 every other week on various sites.

It's really up to the user and what they are going to do. However I think your argument is better suited for comparing the E8200 with the E7200 because the E8400 is vastly superior, especially now with the E0 stepping. When you can overclock your E8400 to 4.0+ ghz on a lower voltage then the E7200 comes at STOCK before overclocking, thats the sign of a monster CPU.

 

[otake]

trax, I still don't understand why at 1680 the cpu bottlenecks the gpu. it just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Kadey]

The E8400 came out first and it was immediately cheap and considered the best bang for your buck CPU and that title still stuck to this day until something else will dethrone it. But people keep recommending it and it keeps flying off shelves so that day won't come any time soon. At the same time last year, an inferior E6800 was going for twice as much. So here you have it.
And Bee lives in Europe I think. The PC standards, namely pricing, aren't the same as in NA.

 

[vertopci]

Mid October I think.

Oh shit...does anyone know if the E8600 will be getting a price drop at that time?

 

[Blizzard]

Oh shit...does anyone know if the E8600 will be getting a price drop at that time?

Does anyone know if the E8400 will be getting a price drop at that time? :lol

Or if I should get the E8600 instead? Or something. I want to get mah new computer now for STALKER and stuff, but price drops are tempting. ;_;

 

[Blackface]

trax, I still don't understand why at 1680 the cpu bottlenecks the gpu. it just doesn't make sense to me.

It bottlenecks only the fastest GPU's, such as the 4870X2. You don't get the full added power of the 4870X2 until you reach higher resolutions. This is why the 4870X2 pulls away from other cards when it's benchmarked at higher resolution's with 4XAA on. You don't need a 4870X2 if you don't game at 1080p+

There will be tons of threads at any major PC forum explaining why this happens.

 

[Cosmonaut X]

Coming to this one late, but I could really do with some suggestions on upgrading my current PC.

I'd like to do it in affordable stages, starting with adding a second HDD and then moving onto adding RAM, upgrading my GFX card etc (I'm running a Radeon X600 (256MB)).

I realise I might have to switch the motherboard out first, so any suggestions on that would be welcome as well - if at all possible, switching the mobo but keeping my current processor so I can upgrade that at a later date would be good.

I'm looking for a system capable of running current & forthcoming games at decent (but not ultra-high) resolutions, a second HDD of at least 250-500GB and ready to hook up to my LCD TV.

Here's a snipped spec dump from CPUZ.:


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Processor 1 (ID = 0)
Number of cores 1 (max 1)
Number of threads 2 (max 2)
Name Intel Pentium 4 630
Codename Prescott
Specification Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.00GHz
Package Socket 775 LGA (platform ID = 4h)
CPUID F.4.3
Extended CPUID F.4
Core Stepping N0
Technology 90 nm
Core Speed 2992.5 MHz (15.0 x 199.5 MHz)
Rated Bus speed 798.0 MHz
Stock frequency 3000 MHz
Instructions sets MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, EM64T
L1 Data cache 16 KBytes, 8-way set associative, 64-byte line size
Trace cache 12 Kuops, 8-way set associative
L2 cache 2048 KBytes, 8-way set associative, 64-byte line size
FID/VID Control yes
FID range 14.0x - 15.0x
VID range 1.116 V - 1.420 V
Features XD



Chipset
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Northbridge Intel i945P/PL/G/GZ rev. 00
Southbridge Intel 82801GB (ICH7/R) rev. A1
Graphic Interface PCI-Express
PCI-E Link Width x16
PCI-E Max Link Width x16
Memory Type DDR2
Memory Size 1024 MBytes
Channels Dual
Memory Frequency 266.0 MHz (3:4)
CAS# 4.0
RAS# to CAS# 4
RAS# Precharge 4
Cycle Time (tRAS) 11
Bank Cycle Time (tRC) 15



Memory SPD
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DIMM #1

General
Memory type DDR2
Module format Regular UDIMM
Manufacturer (ID) Samsung (CE00000000000000)
Size 512 MBytes
Max bandwidth PC2-4300 (266 MHz)
Part number M3 78T6553CZ3-CD5
Serial number F204F157
Manufacturing date Week 42/Year 05

Attributes
Number of banks 1
Data width 64 bits
Correction None
Nominal Voltage 1.80 Volts
EPP no
XMP no


DIMM #2

General
Memory type DDR2
Module format Regular UDIMM
Manufacturer (ID) Samsung (CE00000000000000)
Size 512 MBytes
Max bandwidth PC2-4300 (266 MHz)
Part number M3 78T6553CZ3-CD5
Serial number F204F14F
Manufacturing date Week 42/Year 05

Attributes
Number of banks 1
Data width 64 bits
Correction None
Nominal Voltage 1.80 Volts
EPP no
XMP no



Monitoring
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mainboard Model 0YC523 (0x166 - 0x58FA60)



Software
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Windows Version Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 2 (Build 2600)
DirectX Version 9.0c


Any advice would be most welcome!

 

[BoboBrazil]

Nehalem comes out in October right? Read on a tech forum it might actually be slower than the current quad cores though...they said it won't be worth it until it gets to the lower manufacturing process

 

[BoboBrazil]

Oh yeah I think the new Phenoms are coming around that time too on the 45 process...

 

[zoku88]

Nehalem comes out in October right? Read on a tech forum it might actually be slower than the current quad cores though...they said it won't be worth it until it gets to the lower manufacturing process

Slower? In what way?

I mean, they have less L2 cache than the Penyrn's, but that's about it..., I believe.

 

[BoboBrazil]

Can't remember where I read it, but supposedly it isn't a big jump like people were claiming it to be and some said it might not even be as fast in some instances. The new Phenoms coming out are supposed to be pretty good though according to people on forums like tomshardware and anandtech...

 

[zoku88]

Can't remember where I read it, but supposedly it isn't a big jump like people were claiming it to be and some said it might not even be as fast in some instances. The new Phenoms coming out are supposed to be pretty good though according to people on forums like tomshardware and anandtech...

By new Phenoms, you mean the 45nm dual-core ones? Uhhh, still the same architecture, just a bit smaller process. Don't expect miracles.

If you're talking about Shanghai, that will probably be only competitive with Penyrn, the way it looks now.

As far as Penyrn versus Nehalem goes, Nehalem should be a big jump in almost everything but gaming performance (even though it did see a really big jump in Vantage for some reason, when they put in HyperThreading. Is that heavily multithreaded?)

 

[BoboBrazil]

So will current motherboards support nehalem processors? I have to build a new pc in a few days, since I'm selling my system I have now(x2 4000+, 8600gt, 4 gig ddr2 800, 320g hd). Still contemplating if I should go quad or dual core, buy something lower end now and upgrade in another year or two, and how much ram I should get. I've heard the e8500 and e8600 processors are easily overclocked just by increasing the fsb in the bios. Is this true? Could I do the same with the quad core? I'm not going to be running anything but stock cooling. Also I would like to get 8 gigs of ram if possible. Should I go for ddr2 or go for ddr3? Is the difference noticeable?