Right now I'm playing Orange Box (friggin AWESOME), Bioshock (when it doesn't crash), Civ 4, and AOE 3. I'm mainly an RTS / strategy gamer but do grab the occasional FPS but only the ones with good first person as I don't get into the multiplayer shooters much.
For mobo I was looking at the ASUS P5K-E/WIFI-AP http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E16813131196 Dual video cards is not something I plan on doing anytime soon but onboard USB, Fireware, LAN, and audio is. -- Brian Weeden On 11/7/07, Anthony Q. Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Do any of the games you play use multiple cores? I think SupCom is the > main one that does.... > > You gotta believe that more and more software will be adapted to use > multiple cores over time. It will be a selling or upgrade feature. > Probably games and video manipulation apps....and simulation tools > should, with time, also be adapted. > > Of course, you could always save now and upgrade just the processor > later, once it has become cheaper. Get a good mobo, though. Thus, a > board that runs quad now but only has dual could be upgraded to the > fastest quad available now in a year at a reduced cost relative to now. > > That's my plan. I got the 3.0 GHz Coreduo E6850. > > Brian Weeden wrote: > > I've finally decided to upgrade my main system from the Althon 64 > > 3000+ and nForce4 mobo that have served me so well for the past couple > > years. > > > > I definitely going Intel for the first time in a long time but can't > > decide whether it is worth it for the Quad core as opposed to the Dual > > core. I am looking at both the Core2Dou E6650 and the Quad core > > Q6600. The Core2Dou is $170 on Newegg while the QuadCore is $285. > > > > It would be going into my main PC which is use for work (some > > numerical simulation), video rendering, and gaming. I guess the > > question comes down to how much multiple cores would help. From what > > I have seen, only a few games support 4 cores and not that many more > > support 2 cores. I already have an ATI X1950XT that I won't be > > replacing for at least another year so that might end up being the > > limiter on gaming anyways. All I know is right now the Athlon 64 is > > the bottleneck. > > > > I know certain video/audio encoders support 4 and it will help there > > but I don't do that much. And the numerical simulations I currently > > use are not multi-core aware. The budget is tight this time around > > which I guess is why I'm banging my head so hard about that last $100. > > > > I guess the bottom line is does everyone think that $100 for 2 more > > cores is a good long-term investment? > > > > >
