-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Quad core upgrade?
- Thread starter Ripper-X-
- Start date
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 29,640
- Location
- Chelmsford
No I think reading through this tread he is making perfect sense. All he is saying is that there are always better alternatives in terms of performance for same money or less but it's lack of understanding that people stick to a comfort zone and end up paying more than they should for similar or worse performance than what they could really achieve. The LGA775 is an example of this. It's a decent brand that was once top dollar but it's been superseded yet it's still seen as high end platform so the demand keeps prices static, but this anything but the truth. From what i read, the AMD Athlon II X4 620 is a bargain at <£80.
I never really looked at this way but you're right. I used to look at this but i tend now to right off my equipment using it for research or I'll upgrade my workshop PC. If I do sell them, then it's a bit of beer money
Last edited:
Interested in this possibility too. I am currently running a similar system ( see info in my sig ) with an E6300 o/c'd to 3.2Ghz.
Been pondering going for a quad, probably a 6600 Go but I'm not sure at this point whether it would be worth it. I mainly use my current system for web dev and design as well as a little gaming now and again.
Apologies for jumping into your thread, I'll watch any replies with interest.
I wouldnt go from an E6300 to a Q6600, the difference in performance for gaming is minor, and there is no guarantee you'll get better than 3.2Ghz on the Q6600, you might, but you might not.
Moving to a Q9xxx on the 45nm process would be better, but that can only be done if your motherboard supports it. The 45nm duals and quads are a fair bit faster than the 65nm versions clock for clock.
To the OP. The Q9xxx with a decent clock perform as well as anything in a gaming system, they can keep up with the Phenom's and the i7's 99% of the time in gaming. Intel didnt spend all that much time improving the core in i7, its main "upgrades" are the integrated memory controllers and the change from FSB to QPI or DMI(depending on version). The Q9xxx series are still very good processors and if your motherboard supports it, and you can get a chip at a price your happy with, it will still make a very good "final" upgrade for your motherboard.
Dont forget if you change the motherboard and have an OEM copy of windows, you are technically supposed to purchase a new copy of windows. Only the retail windows allow motherboard changes. (Yes I know the arguments, you blag a reset for the OEM from MS support, but MS legal still wont recognise it as a legal copy).
45nm Quad in 775 socket is still a viable upgrade if you want a hassle free upgrade, with no issues with windows licensing, no need to reinstall windows (changing from intel based motherboard to amd based I would definatly want to reinstall to remove all the intel chipset drivers properly), an probably the best value upgrade as the Phenom II never really demonstrated its ability to be faster than the 45nm Yorkfields unless the PII is massively overclocked.
Last edited:
If I'm honest I find threads like these quite frustrating, I always try to help but some people just won't listen!
A 3GHz Dual Core is a good place to be right now and aside from the benchmarks and synthetic tests I don't believe anyone could tell the difference between a 3GHz + dual core and a 3GHz + quad core
Ripper-X has stated he "wants" a quad core but hasn't really said anything to justify he "needs" a quad core, in essence there is something he *admires* about four cores but a lot of people are not gonna get their moneys worth from an upgrade like this unless they are true multi-taskers (Encoding while playing games etc) or just do lots of predictive tasks such as encoding back to back DivX films, for these true multitaskers the Intel® Core™ i5/i7 is gonna make a real big difference . .
I agree with this. Clock for clock the Core 2 chips are similar in normal use, be it an E2160 or an E8400 etc, at 3.2 GHz you won't see much difference. Same can be said for a the quad cores, unless you are actually doing something that directly benefits from quad cores then don't bother.
Maybe it's frustrating for geeks who like upgrading to the latest stuff every year but in my opinion even an old chip like the E2160, when overclocked well over 3GHz is still a very good system and not worth spending £100+ on replacing this CPU with anything.
I've got a e2160 @3Ghz, its the limiting factor in America's army 2.85, 30fps not in a firefight with an x1900xt. I spent £130 for a Gigabyte P35-DQ6, with its 12-phase power supply to the cpu. I've already invested in a good quad core capable board; so I went ahead and bought a q9550 for £185. The only other option I would have is going to AMD because I am not shelling out for new memory when prices have soared.