Any reason to upgrade from C2D to I7?

[DS9VOY]

For anyone who has made the switch - is it worth it to go from Core 2 Duo to an I7 system?

I currently have a first generation Core 2 Duo E6300 combined with 3 gigs DDR2 RAM.

I am thinking about picking up an I7 CPU, new LGA 1366 board, and 6 gigs DDR3 RAM.

Would this be a worthwhile upgrade? I multi-task like crazy. Generally have some kind of encoding going on the background, lots of apps running in the background.

Looks like it would probably cost $700 to make to switch. Worth it at this point, or should I continue to wait for the next big thing?

Thanks for any advice!

 

[roid450]

Why not give a Quad Core a try before you switch?

 

[Cheex]

Yes I agree. An upgrade to fast Core 2 Quad will give you the best bang for your buck at this time.

 

[DS9VOY]

Originally posted by: roid450
Why not give a Quad Core a try before you switch?

Would I really see that much of a difference going to a Core 2 Quad though? From what I've read I7 smokes the Core 2 Quad....

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: DS9VOY

Originally posted by: roid450
Why not give a Quad Core a try before you switch?

Would I really see that much of a difference going to a Core 2 Quad though? From what I've read I7 smokes the Core 2 Quad....

Doing what ? from what I have read, the only thing they win in, is some encoding tasks, and thats 30%, if you call that smoking. And for one task ?

 

[DS9VOY]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: DS9VOY

Originally posted by: roid450
Why not give a Quad Core a try before you switch?

Would I really see that much of a difference going to a Core 2 Quad though? From what I've read I7 smokes the Core 2 Quad....

Doing what ? from what I have read, the only thing they win in, is some encoding tasks, and thats 30%, if you call that smoking. And for one task ?

For example, memory bandwidth is no contest.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: DS9VOY

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: DS9VOY

Originally posted by: roid450
Why not give a Quad Core a try before you switch?

Would I really see that much of a difference going to a Core 2 Quad though? From what I've read I7 smokes the Core 2 Quad....

Doing what ? from what I have read, the only thing they win in, is some encoding tasks, and thats 30%, if you call that smoking. And for one task ?

For example, memory bandwidth is no contest.

Show me an example of a real world application that is memory bandwidth limited with current Quad CPUs on the desktop platform.

 

[daveybrat]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: DS9VOY

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: DS9VOY

Originally posted by: roid450
Why not give a Quad Core a try before you switch?

Would I really see that much of a difference going to a Core 2 Quad though? From what I've read I7 smokes the Core 2 Quad....

Doing what ? from what I have read, the only thing they win in, is some encoding tasks, and thats 30%, if you call that smoking. And for one task ?

For example, memory bandwidth is no contest.

Show me an example of a real world application that is memory bandwidth limited with current Quad CPUs on the desktop platform.

QTF

 

[cmdrdredd]

I used to be all about having the fastest memory. Had to have DDR2-1000+ and overclock to the limits so my sandra scores went through the roof. Then the memory burned out (high voltage micron D9 ICs) and then I realized something. Having faster memory didn't increase performance in any application I was using, nor any games.

 

[LOUISSSSS]

unless yo'ure doing cpu and memory intensive tasks 24/7, a core i7 isn't worth it over a fast C2Q or Q6600 (still fast).

they're the same for gaming and for most every other app out there.

 

[graysky]

Originally posted by: cmdrdreddShow me an example of a real world application that is memory bandwidth limited with current Quad CPUs on the desktop platform.

Hit the nail on the head there. Even x264 encoding doesn't get much of a boost running DDR2-667 vs. DDR2-1006. Only good for benchmarks

 

[DS9VOY]

Originally posted by: graysky

Originally posted by: cmdrdreddShow me an example of a real world application that is memory bandwidth limited with current Quad CPUs on the desktop platform.

Hit the nail on the head there. Even x264 encoding doesn't get much of a boost running DDR2-667 vs. DDR2-1006. Only good for benchmarks

Hmmm ok I'm convinced. Makes my wallet feel better anyway!

So going from a C2D E6300.... would my best upgrade for a reasonable price be a Q9300?

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: DS9VOY

Originally posted by: graysky

Originally posted by: cmdrdreddShow me an example of a real world application that is memory bandwidth limited with current Quad CPUs on the desktop platform.

Hit the nail on the head there. Even x264 encoding doesn't get much of a boost running DDR2-667 vs. DDR2-1006. Only good for benchmarks

Hmmm ok I'm convinced. Makes my wallet feel better anyway!

So going from a C2D E6300.... would my best upgrade for a reasonable price be a Q9300?

I would get a Q9550 because of the higher multiplier. A Higher multi would make it easier to overclock since you'd be less restricted by your memory and FSB speeds. For instance, to get 3.6Ghz on a Q9550 with 8.5x you need 425Mhz FSB and DDR2-850 on your memory. For a Q9300 which has a 7.5x Multiplier you need 480Mhz FSB and that would put your memory at DDR2-960 speeds. Now you can find memory very cheap rated at DDR2-1066 so that's not exactly a problem unless you already have standard DDR2-800 that just won't get to DDR2-1000 or so speeds easily. The limitation would be the Motherboard. Some boards can get to 480Mhz FSB but it's hard to get stable. A lot of boards just won't go that high.

 

[graysky]

Originally posted by: DS9VOYHmmm ok I'm convinced. Makes my wallet feel better anyway!

So going from a C2D E6300.... would my best upgrade for a reasonable price be a Q9300?

What do you want to do with it? If you're not using it for video encoding or something really CPU intensive, you're wasting your money.

 

[Arkaign]

i7 is an important step forward for Intel in terms of processor design. This will pay off massively in server/backoffice environments, but means next to nothing for 99% of desktop users.

Short answer, C2D Dual Core to C2D Quad = big boost, if your app can use 4 cores. Also makes general multitasking smoother.

C2D Quad to i7 = negligible outside of a few desktop apps, large gains in backoffice environment.

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: graysky
What do you want to do with it? If you're not using it for video encoding or something really CPU intensive, you're wasting your money.

Originally posted by: DS9VOY
Would this be a worthwhile upgrade? I multi-task like crazy. Generally have some kind of encoding going on the background, lots of apps running in the background.

Sounds like he'd benefit, not to mention that in some games like UT3/GTA4 as a couple examples, a quad with more L2 will make a quite noticeable difference.

Assuming you have a good mobo capable of OCing quads decently, a Q9450 or Q9550 OCed will last quite a while IMO.

 

[ajaidevsingh]

i7 was bought by my friend and he seems quite happy with it. The heat is a big problem for one, i was hoping that we should wait for a native i7 cooler but it seems that a C2D to i7 cooler has to do.

As far as general app's are concern it works almost on par as my 3Ghz Q6600 but encoding video is a different story. On games like Left 4 dead i did not find much difference in around 1920* but in GTA4 it is a different story i7 seems so much better even tough he is on GTX280 and i am on 2x 4850.

Also as a side note i7's seems to take temp quite well it is only when our i7 reached mid 80's did we get a bsod where as this threshold for the my q6600 is quite lower than that.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
I used to be all about having the fastest memory. Had to have DDR2-1000+ and overclock to the limits so my sandra scores went through the roof. Then the memory burned out (high voltage micron D9 ICs) and then I realized something. Having faster memory didn't increase performance in any application I was using, nor any games.

Ditto, mushkin redlines, DDR2-1000 for $450/2x1GB kits. Naturally I had to have two of them. Complete waste of money outside of having learned to never waste my money on uber expensive ram again. Funny too, my IC's (all four sticks) burned out too at Mushkin specified voltages, they replaced them all though so I can't complain about Mushkin their service was spectacular.

I have yet to find an actual application where 2x memory bandwidth or 1/2 latencies actually results in >1% difference in performance. Which is nice to know, saved lots of money since then.

 

[akugami]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
I used to be all about having the fastest memory. Had to have DDR2-1000+ and overclock to the limits so my sandra scores went through the roof. Then the memory burned out (high voltage micron D9 ICs) and then I realized something. Having faster memory didn't increase performance in any application I was using, nor any games.

LIES! Everyone knows a 20% increase in memory benchmarks mean a faster system! I mean, that probably translates to like a 1% increase in overall system benchmarks!

I've been saying the same thing for years every time someone wants to buy super expensive memory so they can run their overclocked system on a 1:1 divider. Don't get me wrong, some boards overclock better with better memory but for most people just trying to get a bit of extra "free" performance, it isn't worth spending money on expensive memory.

My recommendations on memory has always been to get something middle of the line. Don't go too low in performance but don't pay for the super duper expensive stuff. For example, on DDR2, I'd go with something that does 4-4-4-15 T1 timings at DDR2-800. Usually this type of RAM will do similar timings in 8GB configs but at T2 timings. You will be hard pushed to notice the difference in performance vs more expensive RAM. And if you overclock, you won't even notice any difference since your system is faster than stock anyways.

 

[betasub]

What's the problem with running memory at 1:1? For most on Skt775, that's the slowest their BIOS will run their memory anyway. Aren't you talking about those who push their memory speed beyond 1:1, and use higher ratios (2:3, 1:2 etc) to get extra bandwidth?

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: betasub
What's the problem with running memory at 1:1? For most on Skt775, that's the slowest their BIOS will run their memory anyway. Aren't you talking about those who push their memory speed beyond 1:1, and use higher ratios (2:3, 1:2 etc) to get extra bandwidth?

I think he's saying that the 1:1 provides the lower limit for the ram you need. If you want to push your FSB above 400MHz then you need some memory capable of going above DDR2-800.

The easiest way to guarantee your memory won't prevent you from doing this (going >400MHz FSB) is to buy some moderately expensive DDR2-1000 ram and operate it at underclocked 1:1 speeds.

 

[Minjin]

Six months later...does everyone have the same opinion? I find that my C2D @2.5ghz (oc'd e2180) is as fast and smooth as I need. But I'm always open for cheap, meaningful upgrades rather than riding a technology to it's grave.

 

[aigomorla]

possibly a quadcore for future applications.

ive said this many times, because the software itself isnt multi threaded, does not mean windows which you are running that software on isnt.

 

[Dadofamunky]

Another vote for the S775 quad upgrade. I'm getting one ASAP.