Legit Reviews

I am beginning to put the first pieces of a gaming system together. At this time, I am trying to spend no more than $1500 on all hardware.

I have decided to start with the CPU as my first selection, but I am nowhere near educated enough to understand the important numbers.

From what I have read here, and other places, there are three important numbers for a quality gaming CPU (in no necessary order):

1) BUS
2) Cache
3) Speed

Now, I read that an OC BUS performs better than OC speed. I also read that a larger cache is a bit better for a gaming system. Near as I can tell, a high BUS and Cache should be first, followed by the processor speed.

Looking at that the start with, the E6600 would seem to be the best choice, based solely off of those numbers. It carries a 1066 BUS, 4mb Cache and 2.4GHZ for 249.99 on Tiger Watch or 222.99 on Newegg.

Am I totally off on the importance of those numbers? If not, what is the comparable AMD chip to that?

I am looking for a quality CPU that would not have to be OC, but I also read that the E6600 is a breeze to OC atleast to 2.8GHZ.

I'll look to use the system for both MMO's and FPS games.

I could use some advice from those much more educated in this field than I am.

Thanks!

After finding some more information on the E6600, it sounds as if the technology is way ahead of the software that it is made for.

My question still remains, how important are BUS vs Cache vs Speed...

Couldn't tell you for sure witch is more important over the other. I'm sure some of the gurus here can tell you that, but I do know that all 3 work together, and its finding the happy middle for all. maxing one or the other can make things worse.

The CPU clock speed (GHz) is what's important. This determines how fast the cpu can process information.
The cache is on-board ram for the CPU. Stuff like games, scientific computations and physics benefit from this the most. The more cache the better.
The Front-Side BUS (1066MHz/800MHz etc.) is the connection between system ram and the CPU. (Slightly different for AMD, but doesn't matter)
The FSB is useful for when your cpu is working with alot of small pieces of data, like games. It's not too important per say, since 99% of the time the CPU(s) core speed is the limiting factor and all CPU's now have a fast FSB.

If your buying an Intel CPU, wait a few weeks, as prices are dropping big time when the new models with a 1333MHz FSB are released!

semper76 wrote:After finding some more information on the E6600, it sounds as if the technology is way ahead of the software that it is made for.

My question still remains, how important are BUS vs Cache vs Speed...

In order of importance, cache is at the bottom of the list, it is basicly for secondary bandwidth alleviation.

With true BUS bandwidth for data transport or sufficient data processing speed, cache is useless. With sufficient data bandwidth and data processing speed, there's little need for cache.

Realtime hardware which required realtime bandwidth and realtime processing speed often used very little cache.

Non-realtime hardware required huge cache to compensate for the true bandwidth and data processing power.

But in regular mainstream PC's real-time doesn't exist, so it is still needed, but is still the lesser important of the three available.

In regards to core 2 duo 2MB cache vs 4MB cache you will see at most a 5-10% difference between the processors at the same speed. And this big difference is only in certain types of applications where the cache is used a lot. So most of the time it is not even noticeable.

Dan

I agree that cache is the least important of the three but if you can get 4meg then so much the better.

But to be honest, with the general tech available today in this price range IMHO it's hard to go wrong. Dont skimp on Mobo, PSU, RAM, and GPU as you need to see the system as a "whole". You could have the fastest CPU known to man with the fastest widest bus out there and if ANY of those other components is crappy, you will be left wanting...

However some large price cuts in Intel CPUs (the only way I'd go right now) is rumored in July...

My system is in my sig, I think I spent around what you are looking at and the ONLY thing I'm left wanting is some damned DX10 games!!!!

My 2 pence...

DMB2000uk wrote:But in regular mainstream PC's real-time doesn't exist...

Ofcourse it does exist. "Bandwidth = both Time AND Frequency"

Time IS bandwidth, as long as there is bandwidth for the job, it can be realtime. When there's no longer sufficient bandwidth, cache could be used to alleviate some bandwidth, AKA some small extra processing time for the job.

When bandwdith is no longer sufficient cache or no cache, realtime processing is no longer possible.

Thanks for all the advice and input on CPU's. I think I have found a couple of solid options for the cost.