• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Bring the Old School 775 to live!

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

JoaoAragao

New Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2016
Hello everyone!
So what i'm trying to do is bring back my old system to life. Ever since i upgraded to a whole new computer, 2600k , cooler master cosmos ii and some other heavy stuff like custom wattercooling 4 gpus, i noticed that my show-off pc isn't realy easy portable.

So i came here ask for help to my cpu choice on my old rig cause in this moment the pc has an C2D 8600 in it and i'm not satisfied with the results.

What do i have in this moment:
- Asus P5KC mobo
- Asus r9 270x 2gb
- This ram's on it's way to me


My objectives/goals:
- CS:GO 144 fps minimum
- GTA V: 60 fps Medium/high settings

Some of my cpu choices :
- Xeon x5482 ( Modded to 775 )

I'm in a tight budget so i want the best perfomance for the price. Also i am thinking doing a litlle bit of overclock.

Let's see what you guys say
And thanks anyways
 
You want a quad core you can clock high. Q9650 or something of the like. GPU is a bit weak and only has 2gb vram. In 1080p for GTA, you will need to turn some settings down for sure. 3gb is the absolute minimum I would go these days..
 
You want a quad core you can clock high. Q9650 or something of the like. GPU is a bit weak and only has 2gb vram. In 1080p for GTA, you will need to turn some settings down for sure. 3gb is the absolute minimum I would go these days..

How big is the difference between q9650 and x5482 (and the difference between x5482 and qx9770?), cause i want the best of the bests price/quality cpu.

I have seen some vid's from q9650 cs:Go and not very good performance, i'm talking about 100 fps
 
Please what really matters is cpu information, i really don't know if worths purchasing a x5482 or qx9770 ( or even lower for what i save in price ). That's my big question :(
 
I was just trying to help, because it's your video card holding you back for higher FPS Gaming. x5482 or qx9770 are about the same, I would go with the qx9770 for gaming.

CPU performance for GTA V http://www.techspot.com/review/991-gta-5-pc-benchmarks/page6.html

I am not 100% agree

Speaking only for cs:go, using 2600k + hd 6970 = 200 fps+
using e8600 + hd 6970 = 60-120 fps

The thing i really wish is 144 fps cs:go and 60 fps gta v cpu performance. Looking vids and reading a lot and i haven't seen yet those cpus xeon and core 2 quad reaching my desire fps. Maybe what i am asking is just too much. Problably i won't give up till i buy an qx9770 or x5482 and try it for myself.

Thanks anyways man. I appreciate a lot
 
The qx9770 will be the easiest to overclock. Otherwise, the x5482 is the fasted out of the box(3.2ghz). The q9650 is 3ghz. Make sure that board supports the xeon.

Anyway, the cpu really isn't going to matter much as they are all quads from the same generation and are part of your 'quest for 144/60fps' problem. The gpu is also part of the problem with its lack of vram (in gta).

Just not sure cs:go responds to more than two cores... if it doesn't, the 8600 may be faster...
 
The thing is that the qx9770 is too dammn expensive , it really is. It is out of option. So stucked in x5482 again. Godd damnn
 
I don't think it's worth the expense honestly. You wouldn't be gaining anything but 2 cores. IPC is the same oN all those chips. That will help in gta.... not so sure about cs:go.
 
I don't think it's worth the expense honestly. You wouldn't be gaining anything but 2 cores. IPC is the same oN all those chips. That will help in gta.... not so sure about cs:go.

Am i just asking too much of these cpu's? :shrug:
 
Your goals are unrealistic for the hardware.

On my current main PC with a 4690K and an HD 7850 (similar to 270X in performance) I was getting 130 FPS minimum in CS:GO.

On my backup PC with a Q8400 overclocked to 3.6GHz it was more like 90-100 FPS minimum. I was hitting 180-200 FPS, but it was below that most of the time, and probably below 140 FPS on average.
 
Back