Never said you'd get 20-50 fps by adding memory, thats ludicrous. If your adding a video card the card should give you that much more fps than your old card or its probably not worth the money.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/ga ... 1,747.html

A gtx260 would run Crysis 12x10 @ 35fps which means that any other game would be running starting from 50fps which is more than enough. As far as i know there is currently no game in development that would require a more powerful machine than Crysis does. Everything else from Mass Effect to Fallout3 to Far Cry 2 to Modern Warfare 2 can be run on entry level cards like 9600gt or hd4670 at 12x10 resolution. And most of those game benefit very little from 4 cores to justify the price.

For the cash being laid out, if you're not going to go core i5, I'd still go with a core2quad. Prices for them are pretty low and as time goes on people will get better and better at multithreading games and apps. I'd go for a quad core more for future proofing than because it's immediately necessary.

If you're really looking to go on the cheap, Peltz is probably right (though Id' still go core2quad). A decent mobo, a core2quad, a gtx260 core16 or gtx275 or so. The rest of the parts aren't all that important, unless you're willing to splurge on an SSD.

In a few months prices will be different... you'll want to check again then.

Cool, will look at that then. Not actually bothered about cutting edge peltz, just long-term reliability/compatibility (as much as you can get with pc parts ) so performance for money is what I'm interested in.

I'll have a nosy around and keep updating anyway

Does Intel have future plans for the core2 line? I figured they were retiring it in favor of core i5/i7, though I could be mistaken. If they are retiring it, then longevity would make buying a core i5 compatible mobo a better bet, since you can (theoretically) upgrade your processor in 2 years without having to buy a new motherboard and possibly RAM.

Not sure if core2 is end-of-lifed or not though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPU_socket

Core i3, i5 and some i7 use socket 1156 but the newer more powerful i7 uses a socket 1366 so in theory opting for the i5 doesn't infact have longetivity because its obsolote already. There is no future proofing in the CPU department and the prices of socket 1366 are ridiculous.

www.scan.co.uk

Core i5@2,66ghz (1156): 150£
Core i7@2,66ghz (1366): 200£

Mainboards:

Socket 1156 (Gigabyte): 82£
Socket 1366 (MSI): 125£

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/20 ... .html?prod[2617]=on&prod[2884]=on
And here is the performance comparison between the two. The core i5 actually outperforms the core i7 in gta4 and left 4 dead (very very slightly but still).

896MB Gainward GTX260 Golden Smple 55nm, 2200MHz GDDR3, GPU 625MHz, Shader 1242MHz, 216 Cores - 130£
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT: Futureproofing

The only real way of futureproofing i see is:

1. Get a ddr3 motherboard with the cheapest entrylevel ddr3 memory
2. Get a mobo that is crossfire or sli capable so you can add a second card in the future.
3. Forget about trying to futureproof the cpu because every new generation comes with its own socket.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT: DDR3 compatibility with core2quad and core2duo

Ive read some articles and i have failed to find a definitive answer wether the Core2 family can actually benefit from DDR3. It seems that Core iX family is designed with ddr3 in mind and there shouldnt be motherboards with socket 1156/1366 and ddr2 (as ddr2 and ddr3 are incompatible electronically, they do share the same 240 pins though).

Socket 1156 for corei5/i7 is technically the 'newer' socket... the original corei7 was purely socket 1366. The way I see it, socket 1156 is for the 'consumer' level, while 1366 is the 'prosumer' line, similar to core2 vs Xeon, sorta.

To me, both 1156 and 1366 will stick around for awhile, the difference being the price and performance levels. I'll be going 1366, but I do a lot of highly cpu-intensive tasks besides gaming, so it makes sense. Most people are probably better going off core i5. I'm betting that both core i5 and core i7 (and sockets 1156 and 1366) will be with us for at least a few years.

However, I could be wrong. Here's a quick shot of the Intel cpu roadmap. http://blogs.zdnet.com/gadgetreviews/?p=9763 It shows Pentium, core i3, core i5 and core i7. Core i3 will most likely be replacing the Celeron line.

Thanks, i stand corrected. In my all-knowing rant thats one thing i didnt even consider as normally Intels higher socket number refers to "newer" technology but apparently that isn't the case anymore.

I can sense that there will be alot of confusion with this to the end-consumers. It is difficult enough to recommend any of these for sub 16x10 gaming and having multiple sockets for one cpu family doesn't help anyone.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT: Will Core i3 kill Core2 prices?

Hmm that means that buying a core2 atm would be a really bad idea because after core i3 hits there would be a serious flood of core2 cpus on the second hand market. Might even get one very cheap. Satis have you ever had a cpu fail on you?

I think core2 is on the way out... it wasn't showing on the product roadmap. So when corei3 comes out (early next year I believe) the price of core2 motherboards and processors should drop.

Regarding CPU failures... I think I had one CPU fail on me once. But considering the number of boxes I've built, that's not much at all. I've had far more graphics cards and hard drives fail. I'm also not an overclocker.

Regarding the socket names, isn't the number the number of pins on the chip?

*quick wikipedia search*
yea, I think I'm right.
LGA-1366 has 1,366 pins, LGA-1156 has 1,156.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socket_1366
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socket_1156

So when Intel drops the Core2 line the price/perfomance ratio improves even further as the companies who have core2 in stock and try to dump it to take in the new core I family by dropping prices which makes the new Core I even harder to suggest untill the the supply of core2 runs out. After all, CPUs do not require driver updates, it'll work till its dead.

The idea here is not to be stingy but getting the optimal solution. To me it seems that buying the optimal solution every 2 years saves some money instead of buying the future proof pc which costs twice the money but lasts for 3 years.

It seems to me that unless the way we play our games radically changes the PC gaming has reached its normal slow life cycle where you do not have to upgrade so often. Theres hardly any point of going past the 19x12 resolution because we'd need 30+ inch monitors to see the difference. Not to mention that at one point the human eye is going to be the bottle neck. We already have the technology which can propel games at 19x12 @ 40fps. Not to mention that there is only one engine that truly makes the hardware run for its money, the CryEngine. Even with that unless the DVD format is abandoned the high res games will come on multiple discs which sucked back in the days and will surely be a mayor bummer in the future. So what fantasy are the gpu/cpu makers going to sell us to justify the upgrade.

The quad cores were launched such a long time ago and still games benefit more from the architectual changes of the cpu rather than the number of cores. (twice the cores, 1-30% increase in performance?)

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/20 ... .html?prod[2884]=on&prod[2620]=on&prod[2632]=on

Left 4 dead:
e8600 to core i5= increase 13%
e8600 to q9550= increse 2%

GTA4:
e8600 to core i5= 27%
e8600 to q9550= 20%

Far Cry 2:
e8600 to core i5= 23%
e8600 to q9550= 13%

Crysis: This is different from the rest because its from the 2008 cpu benchmark
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/de ... 0,818.html

e8600 to core i7(965): 17%
e8600 to q9550: -8% (higher clock speed takes the cake)
e8600 to core i5: no comparison but it is somewhere between 1-17%.

Based on the scan.co.uk prices though the 8600 is not such a good choice because it costs a whopping 200£ which is more than the core i5 which outperforms it. Probably some lazy punk has forgotten to change the prices.

NB! Now it is very important to understand that at this point im not trying to convince anyone of anything. I have derailed Pevs topic into a discussion thread where we are talking about CPUs of today and speculate as what is stored for us in the future. The discussion is now aimed at looking at the past to predict the future.

Keep in mind that any of the processors can run any game provided theres atleast a decent gpu paired with it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT: GPU gains.

Far Cry 2: 1680x1050, 4AA, 8AF, Very High Quality

1. 8800GTS 512mb to GTX260 (216SP) ˇ900mb: gain +45%
2. 8800GTS 512mb to SLI 8800GTS 2x512mb: gain +45%
3. 4870 512mb to CF 4870 2x512mb: gain +75%
4. 4850 512mb to CF 4850 2x512mb: gain +133% (twice and more gain)
5. Strangely the 4850CF outperforms the 4870CF by +9%

This is perhaps the maximum resolution for 8800GTS and 4850.

Far Cry 2: 1920x1200, 8AA, 16AF, Very High Quality (unplayable means less than 25Frames per second)

1. 8800GTS 512mb to GTX260 (216SP) ˇ900mb: gain is 100% gtx260@34fps.
2. 8800GTS 512mb to SLI 8800GTS 2x512mb: gain 29% but both unplayable
3. 4870 512mb to CF 4870 2x512mb: gain +190% but the single card is unplayable.
4. 4850 512mb to CF 4850 2x512mb: gain +50% but both unplayable
5. 4870CF outperforms the 4850CF by +113%

FYI all those test machine had 4 gigs memory. (2) x2gb sticks

In all my years of Pc'ing I've never had or seen a p4 or better die. Im seen alot of older AMD's die due to overheating. I've seen celerons die. I have seen a pc build with a Intel p4 work rather crappy only to find out that who ever built it forgot to take the plastic cover off the bottom of the heatsink. Yes, the cpu still operated and did not over heat even with a plastic cover over the heat sink. Pretty amazing.

Unless you dont know what your doing and bend a pin or get thermal grease inside the pin hole or something odd your cpu will probably outlast everything else. If you have bad power running to your house and have frequent surges or brownouts and for some odd crazy reason you've been foolish enough to NOT have you pc plugged into a surge protector.....electricity will kill your cpu.

I've had my PC (and my chick's PC) going through a UPS with line conditioner for years. My HTPC also goes through a line conditioner (along with my stereo and TV). Anyone who doesn't spend the $50-$200 to protect their $1000+ machines are insane, imo.

Besides, my UPS has outlasted several PCs already. It's more than paid for itself. Plus the bonus of a momentary power outage not affecting me, and a serious power outage allowing me time to save crap and power down.

I know a married couple who where wondering why their pc's kept crashing. Come to find out they have 0 surge protectors in their house. Even on their plasma tv. DUMB!

I hear you. I bought it the same day i bought my pc with 2x6800Ultras which cost 800$ a piece. It needs the battery replaced, i already looked up the price and it costs 80$. On my list to do next week.