Will this processor be good enough for simcity 2013?

[mattynick 0]

I know it's pretty old but was just wondering if it would be able to do the job

Intel pentium dual CPU e2160 @ 1.80ghz (2 CPUs)

[Ocram's Razr 964]

It is indeed very old, ancient by technology standards. The minimum speed of a processor is 2.0 Ghz so your computer will have trouble there. If your graphics card is worse than a GeForce 7900, then you would need to upgrade your outmoded PC.

--Ocram

[Superbacon 380]

Definitely not. For something steady that will run SC2013 steadily, by my guess, I'd recommend a 2 or 4 core CPU with at least 2.5 Ghz (2 or 4 CPU) But I'd do 4.

But then again, if you decide to upgrade processors then you might as well do the whole PC.

[ferryv 94]

Definitely not. For something steady that will run SC2013 steadily, by my guess, I'd recommend a 2 or 4 core CPU with at least 2.5 Ghz (2 or 4 CPU) But I'd do 4.

But then again, if you decide to upgrade processors then you might as well do the whole PC.

now just hoping that they will write a good 64bit SimCity for optimal quadcore pleasure. Because still alot of games dont take advantage of quad. But for gaming always go around 3GHz. But GHz is not everything (threads, cache, FBS, nm, TDP etc) just make sure that you go for a now-a-day CPU technology (Intel 2nd gen i5/i7 or AMD FX-serie) But a E2160 is probably playing on low settings. Like OscramSeattle says make sure your GPU is better than a GF7900. If you have any upgrade questions you can always PM me. good luck

[Zodicus 34]

You can get really good deals on old school core 2 duo's or core 2 quads. Also good deals on older nvidia or ATI cards.

If you want something a bit more modern I suggest you check out there newer I5 or I7 processors with the 5xx series nvidia gpu's.

Also I would recommend an intel processor over AMD. See, AMD cpu's handle one thread per core where as intel's with HT technology can do 2 threads per core. Meaning in one core you effectively get 2 cpu's.

Intel 3930k I7 6 core * 2 threads = 12 threads

AMD Bulldozer 8 cores * 1 - 8 threads

[ferryv 94]

You can get really good deals on old school core 2 duo's or core 2 quads. Also good deals on older nvidia or ATI cards.

If you want something a bit more modern I suggest you check out there newer I5 or I7 processors with the 5xx series nvidia gpu's.

Also I would recommend an intel processor over AMD. See, AMD cpu's handle one thread per core where as intel's with HT technology can do 2 threads per core. Meaning in one core you effectively get 2 cpu's.

Intel 3930k I7 6 core * 2 threads = 12 threads

AMD Bulldozer 8 cores * 1 - 8 threads

Intel and AMD are both good. Depends were you use it for. For gaming there is not much difference (no game use an i7 optimal) it also depends if a game is build on intel or amd. Like WoW is build on AMD while SimCity is build on Intel. But yes im also more fan of the intel i5/i7 series than the bulldozer serie. But the late phenom series were great from AMD with much prices than intel could give (end of core2duo /core2quad time)

[Zodicus 34]

I was speaking more on terms of multiaskable. Obviously with HT technology you can do more multitasking than a cpu running single threads. See there is a common misconception that AMD is better for gaming. That is not entirely true. Gamers DO have a tendency to run just the game when they play. In those cases then an AMD cpu would be fine. I have always been one to run my game on one monitor and multitask across the other 5 ( Playing movies on VLC, multiple firefox tabs, spreadsheets, forums/stex/lex ) so an intel is more along the lines of my taste.

[Dannibee 138]

Y'know even a decent i3-2120 can be picked up for $124.99 and that'll give you all the performance you need for a decent budget gaming rig and with a decent GPU will play any modern game on high. It's only dual core but it has 4 threads and a 3.3Ghz clock speed. Although SC13 doesn't have massive system requirements as it is so you can probably go cheaper or even go for an AMD processor. Which should be fine for what most people do...

[jdenm8 362]

If you want value for money, skip over the AMD FX Series, they're just not worth the money considering how much they under perform. Go for an Athlon X4 which will be much cheaper and just as powerful in most applications. If you want to go above and beyond, a higher-end Sandy Bridge i5 processor (2300, 2400) will be more than enough and greatly outperform even the most powerful and expensive AMD FX Processor, though you may not be able to get one. Their Ivy Bridge equivalents (3370 and 3470 if I'm not mistaken) will do fine, but will be a bit more expensive.

  Edited September 3, 2012 by jdenm8  

[idcaf 65]

If you want value for money, skip over the AMD FX Series, they're just not worth the money considering how much they under perform. Go for an Athlon X4 which will be much cheaper and just as powerful in most applications. If you want to go above and beyond, a higher-end Sandy Bridge i5 processor (2300, 2400) will be more than enough and greatly outperform even the most powerful and expensive AMD FX Processor, though you may not be able to get one. Their Ivy Bridge equivalents (3370 and 3470 if I'm not mistaken) will do fine, but will be a bit more expensive.

please just stop.

First of all, if you have to buy AMD, buy FX series over Athlon X4.Yes, they have a problem with power consumption but at least they're somewhat on par with i3 with regards to gaming and lower-tier i5 with regards to multitasking.

Also do not buy Sandy bridge, except if you get a great deal for a used one, or you're buying a better cooler and planning to Overclock

You're best choice right now is ivy bridge i3 i5 or i7 depending on the budget.

Always consider buying a bit better graphics card and a bit worse CPU than vice-versa.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Right now, I have a q6600 processor and I am looking for a processor that is faster than it with less power consumption. I want to use it for gaming so I currently dislike hyperthreading. Therefore, I want a 4 core processor. I was thinking about using an i5 2500k with the silent Zalman cooler but if there is a better deal, by all means help me.

--Ocram

[Zodicus 34]

I think your best bet would be with the 2500k. If you are using it solely for gaming then you can't beat it.

[NCGAIO 562]

It would be interesting to know if the code of the game is multitread, not it?

  Edited September 3, 2012 by NCGAIO  

[jdenm8 362]

First of all, if you have to buy AMD, buy FX series over Athlon X4.Yes, they have a problem with power consumption but at least they're somewhat on par with i3 with regards to gaming and lower-tier i5 with regards to multitasking.

Also do not buy Sandy bridge, except if you get a great deal for a used one, or you're buying a better cooler and planning to Overclock

I can provide benchmarks that prove that the FX cards perform about the same as the Athlon X6 and worse than the Athlon X4 under realistic circumstances. The FX chips will improve with the next iteration, but this first iteration is really crap.

It's funny you tell him that the FX series is about as powerful as an i3, but last time I checked, they were priced the same as an i5 2400/3450. I think it's reasonable to expect that a $230 CPU perform as well as another $230 CPU, and not worse than a $120 CPU.

[Zodicus 34]

First of all, if you have to buy AMD, buy FX series over Athlon X4.Yes, they have a problem with power consumption but at least they're somewhat on par with i3 with regards to gaming and lower-tier i5 with regards to multitasking.

Also do not buy Sandy bridge, except if you get a great deal for a used one, or you're buying a better cooler and planning to Overclock

I can provide benchmarks that prove that the FX cards perform about the same as the Athlon X6 and worse than the Athlon X4 under realistic circumstances. The FX chips will improve with the next iteration, but this first iteration is really crap.

It's funny you tell him that the FX series is about as powerful as an i3, but last time I checked, they were priced the same as an i5 2400/3450. I think it's reasonable to expect that a $230 CPU perform as well as another $230 CPU, and not worse than a $120 CPU.

I was thinking the same. Look at mark06 scores and consistantly intel spanks amd. Yea they are a touch more expensive but - you get what you pay for.

[idcaf 65]

First of all, if you have to buy AMD, buy FX series over Athlon X4.Yes, they have a problem with power consumption but at least they're somewhat on par with i3 with regards to gaming and lower-tier i5 with regards to multitasking.

Also do not buy Sandy bridge, except if you get a great deal for a used one, or you're buying a better cooler and planning to Overclock

I can provide benchmarks that prove that the FX cards perform about the same as the Athlon X6 and worse than the Athlon X4 under realistic circumstances. The FX chips will improve with the next iteration, but this first iteration is really crap.

It's funny you tell him that the FX series is about as powerful as an i3, but last time I checked, they were priced the same as an i5 2400/3450. I think it's reasonable to expect that a $230 CPU perform as well as another $230 CPU, and not worse than a $120 CPU.

FX is EXACTLY two times better than Athlon X4.

I bought i5 processor just last week, I know what I'm talking about. I would've chosen AMD if it was better for the price but it wasn't, so I chose i5. I'm not biased towards anybody. I'm just saying, that if you have to buy AMD, buy FX, but I otherwise strongly support intel.

If you're tight on budget, try petium G640 Intel. It's incredibly cheap, and doesn't preform much worse than i3.

  Edited September 4, 2012 by CaptCity  
Removed insulting comments. Let's stick to the topic.

[jdenm8 362]

FX is EXACTLY two times better than Athlon X4.

Having four two-core Processing Units instead of a single processing unit with four cores doesn't automatically result in a better processor, certainly not when taking the Bulldozer architecture into account. The architecture used in the last Athlons is miles more efficient than that used in the FX chips and when considering the Athlons are much cheaper than the FXes, the FXes are priced similarly to the i5 3470 and the FXes don't perform as well, it's a no-brainer.

  Edited September 4, 2012 by jdenm8  

[idcaf 65]

>Athlons are much cheaper than the FXes

I never said Athlons weren't a good value processors, they are certainly are a good option for a CPU if you don't have much money. The only problem I have is you telling me Athlon is as powerful as Bulldozer CPUs and sorry boy, as much as they are great value low-tier quad cores, as much as they are cheap, as much as they consume less power ... ... they just aren't as good as AMD FX. Even Pentium II for about the same price offers better performance.

If he has enough money, he should definitely get core i3. If not, he has pentium G640, and if he hates Intel and wants the best AMD processor, he should get FX series and if he hates intel and wants value AMD processor, he's got Athlon X4 and Phenom II.

Are we now clear?

[jdenm8 362]

I agree with your sentiment, he is better off with an Intel chip if he has the money. But I think these excerpts from a The Tech Report benchmarking test will persuade you.

Those are just the first three examples, there are more than eight from memory.

The X4 980 may have been the top-of-the-line chip, but you should be able to get them dirt cheap now the FXes are out now.

Full article can be found here: http://arstechnica.c...th-todays-cpus/

EDIT: Also, I apologise if I misled you, but I meant the Athlon II when I mentioned it, not the original Athlon.

  Edited September 5, 2012 by jdenm8  

[aereus 106]

I'm making a guess here, but I have a feeling Simcity won't really be straining your CPU to even worry about it supporting quad cores. If they have this game working at all like Diablo3, a lot of the core logic is going to be run from the Origin servers. So I really wonder how much computing will be required by your PC. But yes, with 200k agents, ideally it has full multi-core support.

[idcaf 65]

...

I think we're starting to get on the same track now.

First of all we see how Intel just crashes the AMD competition in almost every benchmark. Secondly, we see that, Phenom II x4 and phenom II x6 don't preform that bad, and because they're so cheap, they are a great option for someone building a value PC.

[mattynick 0]

Would the intel I3 3rd gen be a good processor for this game?

[ferryv 94]

Would the intel I3 3rd gen be a good processor for this game?

If you look to the specs req for the game your all good on processor.

[idcaf 65]

Would the intel I3 3rd gen be a good processor for this game?

YES it definitely is. Paired with a good graphics card, you'll have a pretty decent computer mate.