I couldn't decide where to put this. Either The Skyrim thread, since it's regarding that game mainly, the Oblivion hardware thread, or here since it's more computer related than game related. So mods, feel free to move this around if you like

I bought a PC two and a half years ago, and it was awesome for its time. It's now really showing its age, and has slowed down quite a bit. It's on its last legs for top-of-the-line gaming, helped no doubt by the fact that most games are made to meet console standards. I'm now saving up to buy a new computer about a month before Skyrim launches, so that I can play it at max settings. I understand a lot more about computers now than I did back then, and I'm going to build it myself this time rather than buy from Dell. There's one thing I'm not sure about though, and that's how much performance I would get from a CPU's power, specifically in TES games which are known to rely on the CPU a heck of a lot.

To be more specific, there are many CPUs out there, at quad-core level let's say, that either offer 3.0ghz processing power, or for a few hundred quid more, 3.2ghz. Is that significantly more powerful? Noticeably more powerful? Hardly noticeable at all? I have no idea how much extra performance I would get for each 0.1ghz, and therefore how much is worth investing, since at higher tiers - upgrading from 3.6ghz to 3.8 for example, you have to pay a f***-ton more for.

My current CPU is a Q6600, which is a quad-core at 2.4ghz. I'm thinking I'd like to break into the 3ghz range, but if I went for a 2.8ghz quad-core to save money, would that still be significantly more powerful than my current CPU? Would it likely run Skyrim at max settings and sit around 40+ frames most of the time (assuming the GPU is also high-quality)? I'm clueless here I also know there's a lot more that defines the power of a CPU, but I'm most curious about the ghz figures here, and just how much they affect performance.

Thanks for reading my little essay of confusion ^_^

I highly suggest you buy an http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103727 has a clock speed of 3.4GHz, is pretty reliable and it wont break the bank. But as far as clock speeds go on processors thats just how fast it processes things, and you can change that by overclocked the processor. I know a guy who got his AMD Phenom II x4 955 from 3.2GHz to 4.0GHz. So dont assume that a 3.4GHz quad-core is better than a 3.2GHz quad-core because sometimes the 3.2 would be better to get then OC depending on the type of processor.

Also look into getting an http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102914 or if you have the extra cash get an http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102915. That along with the processor should max out Crysis on full graphics as long as you have a good amount of RAM, I suggest 4 or 6 GB of RAM however thats just personal opinion.

I also suggest you talk to Starforce9, he's the one who basically brought me into the whole computer building world and knows a whole bunch more than I do.

I should also point out, clock speeds are not a good indicator of how fast a CPU is.

Ok, thanks for the replies. If clock speed isn't a good indicator of CPU power, then which stats should I pay attention to when looking for one? Or rather, which should I pay the most attention to?

As far as the GPU goes, I'll be buying whatever is second best at the time (October-ish). I bought my current card (1GB GTX280) the week the GTX295 was released, which got me an awesome GPU for a pretty cheap price compared to the new top-of-the-line cards. I'm also thinking of buying two of them for SLI/Crossfire this time around.

I'll be buying at least 8GB of RAM, since I do a lot of digital art, and that comes in very useful for large images. I'm also determined to get a Solid State Drive alongside a Hard Drive, at least to run my favourite games off like Skyrim, and possibly as a boot drive too. We'll see how those prices change over the next 6 months.

I'll share my recent experience with a new CPU, OCing and the Gamebryo engine. (Which may not apply to the new engine for Skyrim, but I personally think it will be CPU intensive as well.)

I got an I7 950 @ 3.06GHz. I'm running 2 5870's, and 6GB DDR3 RAM. (Old CPU = q9550 @ 3.6-3.8GHz. Same GPU's.)

Fallout New Vegas was running 45-60 FPS depending where I was with dips into the mid 30's for quick spurts on transitions, or cell loads. (Both the OC'd q9550 and stock clocks on the 950.) I OC'd my CPU to 4.02Ghz and now I get 60 FPS 99% of the time. The lowest I see is 55 FPS now on outdoor transitions.

I have nothing against AMD, but I prefer Intels offerings for gaming at the moment. (Strictly personal opinion. I guess some might consider me an enthusiast.) They do cost more, but I feel I get that extra punch. (I'll admit my last AMD was the Athlon 64 3500 so I'm not in the know as far as first hand knowledge with the newer stuff. The A64's kicked Intels ass back then though!)

The CPU being the heart of your computer, I'd get the best you can manage now and build on that. (Meaning if need be, get a lesser, or just 1 GPU for now and make the base as powerful as possible.)

Give it a bit of time and the I7 series will drop in price with Sandy Bridge out now. (Again, not sure what AMD has up it's sleeve at the moment but they are still great CPUs for cost/performance.)

So overclocking your i7 from 3.06GHz to 4.02GHz made a huge difference?

Looking at the current i7 range, which should be very affordable in October, there's the 960, 970, and 980x, at 3.2, 3.2, and 3.33GHz respectively. That's hardly any difference with those figures, but they have other figures too. Respectively: 4.8GT/s and 8MB, 6.4GT/s and 12MB, and the 980x also has 6.4GT/s and 12MB. The 980x is ￡230 more expensive than the 970 though, even though the only difference in figures is that it has an extra 1.3GHz... is that really worth paying ￡230 for!?

Also, what do those other figures mean? Will they make overclocking easier, allowing me to push the 970 further than the 960 for example?

I wouldn't bother with anything past the 950 if you feel you have it in you to OC. It's easy to do.

The 4.8GT/s etc are the QPI frequency. I7's have built in memory controllers (Unlike anything previously.) and that is what QPI frequency is for.

OCing an I7 mostly consists of bumping FSB, vcore if needed, and QPI settings if needed. Depending how far you go you may need to bump others.

Considering the time between now and then, the Sandy Bridge line may be better for you. From what little I have read it seems to be great performance for less than the I7s. (Taking Ocing into account. A lesser SB may OC better than a higher I7.)

This question would be better answered much closer to purchase date as a lot can change in those short few months. (It's been minutes and I am questioning my I7 recommendation. )

Haha, okay, I'll wait another 4 or 5 months before thinking too hard about this

I do agree it would probably be better to hold back on a second GPU in favour of a better CPU at first. It does seem a lot easier to upgrade GPUs and RAM than the CPU.

I'll keep an eye on the Sandy Bridge tech, and see how its performance and price equates to i7 processors later on.

Many thanks for your help! ^_^

My pleasure.

Have you tried overclocking your Q6600? You should be able to easily get it around 3.0 - 3.2 Ghz and that might smooth out your problematic games enough to keep you satisfied a little longer (while saving for something else). Just make sure you have a good heatsink/fan.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2007/07/25/overclocking_intel_core_2_quad_q6600/1

I know nothing of computers much. Very little I understand. So my question will seem stupid to those in the know. Would a quad core really be of any use? I mean if the game is not made for quad cores, or even dual cores, would having more cores help with the game then if it's not designed for it?

I have a question on this.

My laptop has an i7 720QM CPU that runs at 1,6 Ghz. WIth the click of a button the computer overclocks it into 2,4 (I think).
So, is it just as possible to OC a laptop CPU? And would it conflict with the computers built in OC feature?

I'd actually recommend the same AMD BE quad linked, and for a GPU, look into the GTX 460 or 570. Apparently both are good; I run a 460 and no complaints here. Great bang for your buck.

Don't even bother thinking 'bout CPU's for Skyrim as IVybridge will be out then and things will be a whole different story. As is your best off with a 2600K.

Core i5 2500K is better bang for buck if gaming is intention. Those extra threads of the 2600K do nothing for gaming. Overclocking Sandy Bridge is amazing...4.6GHz on air is easy...some getting 5GHz.

Ivy bridge will come out after the game's release and will be die shrinks...32nm to 22nm.

What is this Sandy Bridge thing? Sounds like a very strange name... but so long as it works well. I'm assuming it's the next generation of CPUs from either Intel or AMD, but do you have any info on release dates and potential pricing?

If it really is going to be that much of a leap forward, then perhaps I would be better off investing in one of those, rather than an i5 or i7 with their lower prices come October. Just like to know what the options are ^_^

Sandy Bridge was just released this Monday, I believe, not much of an Intel guy here so I dont keep track of release dates that much. But they are out and on the market, they are getting really good overclocks. http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=40000343&IsNodeId=1&Description=sandy%20bridge&name=Processors%20-%20Desktops

I've heard a lot about Newegg, but also heard they don't ship to the UK. Is that still true? Is there a UK equivalent for cheap individual computer parts? I imagine shipping from the US would be expensive

I tend to buy my components from http://www.overclockers.co.uk or http://www.ebuyer.com/ My last two rigs have been built with parts from OCUK, pretty good prices and decent customer service.

http://www.scan.co.uk/ as well.

The mid range (No high end yet.) Sandy Bridge line are spanking the high end I7s. Figures, I just bought an I7 and MSI BB Xpower mobo, but I love it none the less.

Intel's Sandy Bridge is a new architecture based on 32nm process. It was released this past Sunday and the Core i5 2500K and Core i7 2600K are really the only chips to care about....they have unlocked multipliers and can overclock like crazy. I myself picked up the 2500K and a Asus P8P67 Pro board this past Sunday for a major discount through Microcenter since they're running some nice combo deals.

Haven't had the chance to build it yet as I'm still waiting on RAM to come in and been working a lot. But soon. Looking to get at least 4.6GHz on air. :hubbahubba:

Plenty of reviews on the chip can be found here:
http://www.dailytech.com/Quick+Roundup+Intel+Sandy+Bridge+Reviews/article20540.htm

Most of the time, you get the performance of the Intel Extreme 980X (last gen fastest chip) for around 1/4th of the price....and that's at stock speeds.

It's the platform to build around if you're looking into a new system right now. However, if you're gonna wait for a few months, may as well wait for AMD's Bulldozer line of CPUs later on this year and see how they stack up against Sandy Bridge. Should be interesting. Intel's die shrink of Sandy Bridge, which is codenamed Ivy Bridge will be out supposedly early next year.





One more:
http://www.cclonline.com/