Disappointed With Upgrade: Core2Quad -> Core i7

[Persecuter]

or it explodes

 

[Shayper]

I went for an i52500k and an ASRock z68 extreme4 after my 860/p55 gd65 combo blew up, and I can notice the difference, even though I had the 860 @ 4.6 and the 2500k @ stock

 

[Buchanan0204]

I wouldn't doubt benchmarks show an improvement, but realistically, how significant a benefit have you actually noticed in day to day use?

This is my sentiments exactly. Who really cares what numbers a program spits out??? If it can do what you want it to to the best it can be done. Then why would you want more and why would you pay for the privilege?

The only justifiable reason to want a beefier system is if you do a lot of video or photo rendering. Heavy lightroom exports, HD movie compressions etc.

If it's purely for gaming, then the older generation chips are more than enough. If you want to get more FPS, look at the graphics cards section, not the CPU. The clue is in the name. You don't see pictures of Lara Croft on the side of the 2500K do you?

Obviously you do need a decent CPU for games, Quad core preferably. However these crazy overclocks 5Ghz+ really make no difference to games performance. All it will do is spit out a higher number so you can copy and paste it into your signature on here. I mean, comon! Step outside and see the sunshine!

I've said it many times before. I run a [email protected] with a 6970. It maxes out all my games, including black ops which runs at 6000x1080 resolution and I still maintain 60FPS+. I highly doubt spending 300 quid upwards on a new mobo, ram and processor would help this.

Just for info. It's an old X38 board with DDR2 1066Mhz ram. There's really no need for all this sandybridge 5Ghz nonsense if all you do is play games. There less demanding on the CPU than companies want you to believe.

For games - get the best graphics card you can afford and a sensible quad core cpu

for encoding - get the best CPU you can afford!

The amount of people that get the above the wrong way around is crazy!

 

[C64]

I guess what mostly matters is that you simply have enough grunt to not bottleneck your graphics card.

 

[BusError]

I switched from a q9650 at 4Ghz to a 2600k at 4.6 (mobo died), and there is a noticeable difference on long runs (I mostly use it for linux distro building and electronics) but the difference is not /world shattering/ really. The fact I now use DDR3 might have more impact than the CPU itself in a straight line...but as soon as I can use the HT threads (ie run 8 tasks), it DOES pick up and make a difference..

 

[Buckster]

from Q6600 @3.6 to i5 2500k @ 4.5 or even @ stock speed the massive performance increase was well worth the upgrade but not only that our electric bill is down £10 per month.

if used for 15 hrs a day at full load

that'd be saying the Q6600 used 150W/hr more - is that really true -seems very high to me ?

I thought overclocked Sandys still drew a lot ofpower ? otherwise they wouldn't need high end heatsinks when heavily overclocked

 

[ATIorNvidia]

None of these sites ever compare say a Q6600 @ 3.6 ghz or Q9550 @ 3.8-4ghz vs the newer chips whys it always stock speeds ?

Because they're idiots.

if used for 15 hrs a day at full load

that'd be saying the Q6600 used 150W/hr more - is that really true -seems very high to me ?

I thought overclocked Sandys still drew a lot ofpower ? otherwise they wouldn't need high end heatsinks when heavily overclocked

They consume a fair amount less than Phenom/1st gen 1156 but that doesn't mean they don't need decent heatsinks...

 

[Lunawolfy]

95W is the max TDP.

I'm unsure but I think larger mobos had higher TDP and used more power.

Plus speedstep saves a lot of moneys

 

[413x]

Have an i7 ,920 as a move from a laptop, I think a sandy bridge may even be a down grade for me, the only cpu intensive tasks I do are hd video compression, the hemorrhaging really really makes a difference, I don't think I'll upgrade for years, possibly until it blows