Specs. speculation

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for danny321
danny321

256

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 danny321
Member since 2005 • 256 Posts
What do you think about this system; Q6600, XFX9600GT, 2 gig ram, PC Power Cooling 610watts? How well will it run the latest games, especially crysis?
Avatar image for WDT-BlackKat
WDT-BlackKat

1779

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 WDT-BlackKat
Member since 2008 • 1779 Posts
I'd exchange the quad core for a dual, then take that money and switch to an 8800GT or 9800GT. 2 more gigs RAM.
Avatar image for dbowman
dbowman

6836

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#3 dbowman
Member since 2005 • 6836 Posts

What do you think about this system; Q6600, XFX9600GT, 2 gig ram, PC Power Cooling 610watts? How well will it run the latest games, especially crysis?danny321

Its a great setup. Gears of War and Call of Duty 4 will run on MAX settings. Although with Crysis you should expect to turn a few settings to medium.

Avatar image for danny321
danny321

256

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 danny321
Member since 2005 • 256 Posts

I'd exchange the quad core for a dual, then take that money and switch to an 8800GT or 9800GT. 2 more gigs RAM.WDT-BlackKat

For what I've heard the 8800gt is faster than the 9600gt, but not much. The quadcore I think is more future proof than a dual. So changing the 9600gt in a couple of years and retaining the quadcore is the idea. If I opt with a dual core (the E6600/6700) and the 8800gt, I'll have to upgrade both of them in a couple of years. What do you think of this?

Avatar image for theragu40
theragu40

3332

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#5 theragu40
Member since 2005 • 3332 Posts
Well, I suppose the quad core might technically be more future-proof...but dual core processors are going to be the standard for programming for a little while yet...and you'd get much better bang for your buck gaming-wise if you went with an e8400 instead of the q6600. By the time most applications are wanting quad cores, you're probably going to want to be upgrading your processor anyway. Just my two cents...
Avatar image for danny321
danny321

256

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 danny321
Member since 2005 • 256 Posts

Well, I suppose the quad core might technically be more future-proof...but dual core processors are going to be the standard for programming for a little while yet...and you'd get much better bang for your buck gaming-wise if you went with an e8400 instead of the q6600. By the time most applications are wanting quad cores, you're probably going to want to be upgrading your processor anyway. Just my two cents...theragu40

Thanks for your opinion, but an e8400 is a bit more expensive than a q6600. I'm on a tight budget that's why I don't want to go for an 8800gt.

Avatar image for theragu40
theragu40

3332

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#7 theragu40
Member since 2005 • 3332 Posts

[QUOTE="theragu40"]Well, I suppose the quad core might technically be more future-proof...but dual core processors are going to be the standard for programming for a little while yet...and you'd get much better bang for your buck gaming-wise if you went with an e8400 instead of the q6600. By the time most applications are wanting quad cores, you're probably going to want to be upgrading your processor anyway. Just my two cents...danny321

Thanks for your opinion, but an e8400 is a bit more expensive than a q6600. I'm on a tight budget that's why I don't want to go for an 8800gt.

aha, my bad, I didn't really look into the prices that much...wasn't sure how much the q6600's were costing.
Avatar image for danny321
danny321

256

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 danny321
Member since 2005 • 256 Posts
Never mind. I do appreciate sharing your ideas. Thanks a lot.