Ok right now on new egg i found a E7400 2.8 GHz intel Core 2 Duo. i have a Duo core 2.0GHz. is this a good buy to upgrade my PC? or not. i have goos spec on RAM Video card and OS. only thing i was is a good CPU. is this a good buy or not?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Ok right now on new egg i found a E7400 2.8 GHz intel Core 2 Duo. i have a Duo core 2.0GHz. is this a good buy to upgrade my PC? or not. i have goos spec on RAM Video card and OS. only thing i was is a good CPU. is this a good buy or not?
id say get yourself some decent thermal grease and a fansink and OC your current one (providing it to is a core 2 duo)
i have no idea how to OC my CPU. plus i dont want to kill it right away im lose to 2 year with my rig and i dont want to over kill it. if i OC how long do you think i will have till my CUP dies on?
and if u can tell me how to OC my CPU then ill do it but idk how
I would neither overclock nor buy a new CPU IF you aren't experiencing any performance issues with your current one. If you aren't getting the desired performance on games and it isn't you graphics cards fault then it might be time to upgrade.General_Xwell, not always the case you see... my Q6600 at stock is great and i really dont need any more performance.. but if everyone thought like that, why wold overclocking exist?
lol people need to understand CPU's dont die the moment they are overclocked... i held a pentium 4 2.66 GHz overclocked to 3.4 on the stock cooler for 4 years and not once did it give me a problem... i have my Q6600 with a 1.2 GHz overclock for 7 months, runnin' smooth as butter... seriously, a stock CPU will live decades, a mild overclock will live about the same, and an EXTREME overclock (1.5 GHz and up) are still bound to at least 7 years... so yeah dude, dont be worried, ive killed CPU's before, but that was on purposeGTR2addict
True. Everyone thinks that within 1-2 weeks, their CPU will completely blow up.
No, false, not true, wrong.
[QUOTE="GTR2addict"]lol people need to understand CPU's dont die the moment they are overclocked... i held a pentium 4 2.66 GHz overclocked to 3.4 on the stock cooler for 4 years and not once did it give me a problem... i have my Q6600 with a 1.2 GHz overclock for 7 months, runnin' smooth as butter... seriously, a stock CPU will live decades, a mild overclock will live about the same, and an EXTREME overclock (1.5 GHz and up) are still bound to at least 7 years... so yeah dude, dont be worried, ive killed CPU's before, but that was on purposeknight0151
True. Everyone thinks that within 1-2 weeks, their CPU will completely blow up.
No, false, not true, wrong.
You just have to keep a close look on your cpu temps.. Toms hardware shed has a large temperature guide for Core 2 duo's and quads.[QUOTE="General_X"]I would neither overclock nor buy a new CPU IF you aren't experiencing any performance issues with your current one. If you aren't getting the desired performance on games and it isn't you graphics cards fault then it might be time to upgrade.GTR2addictwell, not always the case you see... my Q6600 at stock is great and i really dont need any more performance.. but if everyone thought like that, why wold overclocking exist?Hobby? I don't believe overclocking offers that much of a performance increase outside of maybe 3DMark.
i dont have any fans nor do i want to buy things i never head about like thermal grese or what ever. nor do i know where to put them. i just want to runn assassin creed on very high. with out teh FPS slowing down. i mean the settings are on high buy i want to put them on very high. i meet all the right specs for the game but not my CPU. so if anyone will glad to help me out what do i see to get to OC my CPU like all thoses heat sinks and all that. then ill think about OCing my CPU if not then ill just get a new CPU. plus why not i think its time to upgrade my CPU from Core Duo to Core 2 Duo.;)
Better spend your money to get a better Video Card...i dont have any fans nor do i want to buy things i never head about like thermal grese or what ever. nor do i know where to put them. i just want to runn assassin creed on very high. with out teh FPS slowing down. i mean the settings are on high buy i want to put them on very high. i meet all the right specs for the game but not my CPU. so if anyone will glad to help me out what do i see to get to OC my CPU like all thoses heat sinks and all that. then ill think about OCing my CPU if not then ill just get a new CPU. plus why not i think its time to upgrade my CPU from Core Duo to Core 2 Duo.;)
acsam12304
Hobby? I don't believe overclocking offers that much of a performance increase outside of maybe 3DMark. General_Xyou don't believe reality... from going from 2.4 to 3.6 i gain over 40 fps in most games, about 15 in crysis, FOR FREE. so yeah, keep believing that, just expect to be proven wrong so badly you'll wish you never thought like that... overclocking speeds up your system overall.
I think with a decent overclock, you can gain a few extra fps in gamesChris_53read above, depending on game, fps improvements can range from 10 to 60 fps
I think with a decent overclock, you can gain a few extra fps in gamesChris_53
Yes it is hardly worth it. Some one posted something about a faster FSB is better with a lower overclock results in more FPS in games thus by lowering the multiplier and upping the FSB you can gain more than a faster overlclock at a lower FSB.
[QUOTE="GTR2addict"]from going from 2.4 to 3.6 i gain over 40 fps in most gamessteddyrob
At low settings no aa and low resolution, not at high settings with AA and resolution. LMAO.
not really. let's see... Call of Duty World at War: Maxed settings with corpse number on insane, 4XAA at 1680x1050, single player campaign, tank mission with the soviets (fraps benchmark tool, F11): 2.4 GHz: Min FPS.39 Avg FPS.79 Max FPS.193_____________3.6GHz: Min FPS.48 Avg FPS.94 Max FPS.199 15 fps improvement. Crysis: HP Custom Very High config DX9. Assault mission, no AA, 1680x1050. 2.4: Min FPS.12 Avg FPS.28 Max FPS.58 3.6: Min FPS.14 Avg FPS.35 Max FPS. 63 (its a hella improvement considering its bloody crysis) Tom Clancy's HAWX: DX10.1, 2XAA, 1680x1050, refinery defense mission. 2.4: Min FPS.39 Avg FPS.45 Max FPS.80 3.6: Min FPS.43 Avg FPS 61 Max FPS.92 older games improve alot more, and i play them maxed with 24XCFAA most of the time... im getting an Asus P5E tomorrow, ill test out the whole high FSB/low clock[QUOTE="teddyrob"][QUOTE="GTR2addict"]from going from 2.4 to 3.6 i gain over 40 fps in most gamessGTR2addict
At low settings no aa and low resolution, not at high settings with AA and resolution. LMAO.
not really. let's see... Call of Duty World at War: Maxed settings with corpse number on insane, 4XAA at 1680x1050, single player campaign, tank mission with the soviets (fraps benchmark tool, F11): 2.4 GHz: Min FPS.39 Avg FPS.79 Max FPS.193_____________3.6GHz: Min FPS.48 Avg FPS.94 Max FPS.199 15 fps improvement. Crysis: HP Custom Very High config DX9. Assault mission, no AA, 1680x1050. 2.4: Min FPS.12 Avg FPS.28 Max FPS.58 3.6: Min FPS.14 Avg FPS.35 Max FPS. 63 (its a hella improvement considering its bloody crysis) Tom Clancy's HAWX: DX10.1, 2XAA, 1680x1050, refinery defense mission. 2.4: Min FPS.39 Avg FPS.45 Max FPS.80 3.6: Min FPS.43 Avg FPS 61 Max FPS.92 older games improve alot more, and i play them maxed with 24XCFAA most of the time... im getting an Asus P5E tomorrow, ill test out the whole high FSB/low clockWanna know why older games have such good improvements? Because they aren't programmed for multi-core usage, so the entire load is but onto one core therefore increasing its clock speed would help a lot more. Also why would you want to run older games faster when a half decent rig should be able to max them anyway, and an average LCD monitor's refresh rate is 60Hz (60FPS) max.[QUOTE="GTR2addict"][QUOTE="teddyrob"]not really. let's see... Call of Duty World at War: Maxed settings with corpse number on insane, 4XAA at 1680x1050, single player campaign, tank mission with the soviets (fraps benchmark tool, F11): 2.4 GHz: Min FPS.39 Avg FPS.79 Max FPS.193_____________3.6GHz: Min FPS.48 Avg FPS.94 Max FPS.199 15 fps improvement. Crysis: HP Custom Very High config DX9. Assault mission, no AA, 1680x1050. 2.4: Min FPS.12 Avg FPS.28 Max FPS.58 3.6: Min FPS.14 Avg FPS.35 Max FPS. 63 (its a hella improvement considering its bloody crysis) Tom Clancy's HAWX: DX10.1, 2XAA, 1680x1050, refinery defense mission. 2.4: Min FPS.39 Avg FPS.45 Max FPS.80 3.6: Min FPS.43 Avg FPS 61 Max FPS.92 older games improve alot more, and i play them maxed with 24XCFAA most of the time... im getting an Asus P5E tomorrow, ill test out the whole high FSB/low clockWanna know why older games have such good improvements? Because they aren't programmed for multi-core usage, so the entire load is but onto one core therefore increasing its clock speed would help a lot more. Also why would you want to run older games faster when a half decent rig should be able to max them anyway, and an average LCD monitor's refresh rate is 60Hz (60FPS) max. i don't use vsync, so i'm not limited to 60 FPS. i know older games dont use multiple cores, but i usually DO force them to run on 2 cores, anyhow, any new games i play have a great improvement in performance with just raw clock speed, like STALKER, STALKER:CS, FEAR2, Crysis Warhead...At low settings no aa and low resolution, not at high settings with AA and resolution. LMAO.
General_X
What, exactly, is your processor and the rest of your specs?
If it is a Core 2 Duo at 2Ghz, that's fine; there's no need to spend that much money on updgrading to the 7400 when you could easily clock it to the same speed. Even if you don't want to overclock it to that speed, I expect that Assassin's Creed wouldn't run any better on a stock 7400 than on your current CPU at stock.
If your CPU is a Pentium D (or Core Duo) you can't upgrade to the 7400 anyway without changing your motherboard.
Let us know your specs in better detail and we can help you more.
What, exactly, is your processor and the rest of your specs?
If it is a Core 2 Duo at 2Ghz, that's fine; there's no need to spend that much money on updgrading to the 7400 when you could easily clock it to the same speed. Even if you don't want to overclock it to that speed, I expect that Assassin's Creed wouldn't run any better on a stock 7400 than on your current CPU at stock.
If your CPU is a Pentium D (or Core Duo) you can't upgrade to the 7400 anyway without changing your motherboard.
Let us know your specs in better detail and we can help you more.
manic111
i got a Duo Core. not a Core 2 Duo. i have a Pentium Dual CPU E2180 @2.00GHz 2.00GHz. my monther board is a ASUS Motherboard. i cant change it to a Core 2 Duo. my motherboard suppoers. intel Core 2 Duo, intel vPro, and intel Q965, and it intel Quad-core ready.
my toehr specs are 5GB RAM, Gforce 8600GT 256MB,
By today's standard that is a weak graphics card. Upgrading that would give way more FPS in games than upgrading the CPU.
I used to have that processor, and decided to upgrade due to it being a little slow. However, I didn't put in the effort into looking it up and seeing what it can do after overclocking. Considering the speeds, I think you could very well forego spending that money :D. Here's a link showing the numbers people got. Granted, the second one is probably after purchasing an after-market cooler, so I don't suggest it :P :
Link 1
Link 2
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment