From Pentium EE 955 to a Q6600/E8400 - worth it?

[Werelds]

Hi folks!

A few days ago, my dad's motherboard got the oh-so-notorious USB problem that randomly pops up on boards using the Intel IC5H (He's got a good old ASUS P4P800); I told him I might buy a new CPU (+ mobo if needed, read on to see why) so he could take over my current ones. I've also posted this question on forums over at uncle Tom's, but I couldn't get a 100% clear answer there.

This is what I'm running on at the moment:
- Intel Pentium EE 955 (3.46GHz @ 1066 MHz FSB); Often listed as a Pentium D 955 (which is what Vista says), even though that model does not actually exist. In essence though, this is a Pentium D but running on a higher FSB, you can check this on the linked URL.
- Intel D975XBX2 motherboard; Would support a Q6600 if I bought one. Doesn't support the E8400, but buying a new motherboard isn't much of a problem.
- 4 Gigabytes of DDR2-800 Nanya Elixir memory; obviously running 64-bit (Vista Business)
- XFX 8800GTS 640MB, which is based on the old chip 🙁

Now, my questions is as follows:
Is it worth it for me to switch to a Q6600 or E8400 over my current CPU, with my goal being better gaming performance (mainly heavy games such as Crysis) without losing the multitasking performance I have now (it actually pays off to have the 4 logical CPU's for me, as I'm studying to be a software engineer and as a result I've often got loads of different stuff running at once)?

I'm very satisfied with my current board and CPU, but for some reason it's very hard to find any realistic/useful benchmarks regarding this CPU. In some benchmarks it's listed on an almost equal level as the Q6600, even more often it's listed as being only half as fast.

Thanks in advance! <3

 

[Markfw]

Welcome to the forums !

As for the performance, the C2D platform is roughly twice the performance of the Pentium D at the same clock speed. If you OC the Q6600 to 3.4 (which is easy to do with a good HSF) then the Q6600 would be twice the speed you currently have. I would do it in a second.

 

[Werelds]

Didn't realize the performance gap was that big; is it even worth the 170 Euros at stock speeds?

I haven't overclocked anything since my old P3 (866 to 10..something, before that I got a 486DX4-100 to a whopping 20MHz; good old days of jumper-set FSB!), but it seems to be rage lately for both CPU's as well as GPU's; is it really that easy and safe to do nowadays?

Anyways, thanks for your quick reply!

P.S. HSF stands for Heatsink and Fan?

 

[Roy2001]

Get the E8400 for game only, you will be happy. For multi-tasking like video processing, Q6600 is the king. Intel itself said Core2 has 40% performance jump while consumes 40% less energy compare to Pentium 4/D. The 45nm E8400 would be even better.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Werelds
Didn't realize the performance gap was that big; is it even worth the 170 Euros at stock speeds?

I haven't overclocked anything since my old P3 (866 to 10..something, before that I got a 486DX4-100 to a whopping 20MHz; good old days of jumper-set FSB!), but it seems to be rage lately for both CPU's as well as GPU's; is it really that easy and safe to do nowadays?

Anyways, thanks for your quick reply!

P.S. HSF stands for Heatsink and Fan?

Overclocking the C2D's is way easier than before. Even at stock it will crush the P4D, but at least give it a try. Most of us could tell you the settigs on a decent board that work 95% of the time, and you spend 30 seconds doing it.

 

[stevty2889]

Yeah, the performance differance of C2D chips over pentium4/D's is quite big. Pentium-D's were never the greatest for gaming, at the time Athlon X2's spanked them, and the C2D's are a noticable differance over both of them. Not many games yet that take advantage of a quad core, so for now a higher clocked dual core might still be better. As already stated though, it's very easy to overclock these chips as well. My E6600 (old 2.4ghz dual core) would run at 3.1ghz on stock voltage, and even at stock speeds, it would destroy the Pentium D 805 I still have running at 3.7ghz. My X2 at 2.6ghz is also faster than the Pentium-D at 3.7ghz. The Q6600's also overclock nicely. I went for a Q6700, haven't really tried to push mine farther, but it's at 3.4ghz at the moment.

So basicly, yes, it's worth the switch.

 

[magreen]

Good rule of thumb: a core 2 duo or quad is twice as fast as a Pentiun 4 or D at the same clockspeed for single-threaded tasks. So a Core 2 Duo at 1.8GHz (e.g. E4300) would be about the same speed or faster as your Pentium EE at 3.46Ghz. A Core 2 Duo at 3GHz like the E8400 would demolish the Pentium EE.

But it sounds like you want the quad, since it has 4 physical cores, not just logical, for your multithreaded software projects. And even at stock at 2.4GHz, each core of the q6600 is much faster than each core of your Pentium EE. And overclocking these Core cpus is laughably easy.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

the missing factor to this equation of 'is it worth it?' is the money factor. are you willing to spend about 300-500 for a new platform?

Occam's razor

 

[Werelds]

Yeah, money isn't that big of a deal, but obviously I'm not gonna go for the absolute top of the line models, since they're still overpriced compared to their 'weaker' version, while the differences aren't record breaking.

I must admit I'm starting to lean towards the E8400 now (for the sheer fact that I only do ~30% of my developing at home, biggest part has to be done at uni), despite me having to buy a new motherboard to accompany that. Only annoyance would be that of the recommended motherboards in the general forums, only the P5Q Pro is available to me; my favourite webshop has a couple more models similar to the ones mentioned on offer, but I prefer keeping it local in case something goes KABOOM. Local shop only has two MSI motherboards and the ASUS P5K. I'm pretty sure the P5K would do fine though?

P5K + E8400 would only set me back 260; not looking at DDR3 yet (because prices are ridiculous over here at the moment, think of ~100-110 euros for just one gig), so I'd be able to keep my current memory. Just need to find the timing on these chips I have at the moment, as that's kind of handy to know if I decide to OC.

Edit: Forgot about cooling, got to find a good one somewhere, as locally I can only get the Coolermaster Hyper TX 2; no idea whether it does the job, time to find some reviews!

 

[Magusigne]

P5Q is a good choice for single video card and Oc'ing.

Tuniq Tower is a good CPU cooler. How far are you trying to overclock?

 

[secretanchitman]

P5K is fine... and coupled with the E8400, you're looking at a damn good system.

 

[Werelds]

Bringing up my old topic for reference.

Since I started this, my graphics card gave up completely out of the blue. Luckily, my retailer is awesome, and despite it being out of their warranty, they replaced my 8800GTS 640 (G80) with a 9800GTX.

I decided to buy 3DMark Vantage and compare my system to others (full specs at the end of this post, for the record), and I noticed that the differences are very minor when compared to systems with an E8400 or Q6600.


My ORB link: http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dmv=245424
NOTE: I'm using the PhysX enabled driver from NVIDIA, but compared to other systems with the same driver, I'm still only slightly behind.


In fact, there's a few Q6600 systems with the same driver which I beat in graphics scores, I'm guessing this is because my CPU runs at a higher clock speed?


In the Graphics department, I keep up easily. Biggest difference on similar systems I've noticed is 2 FPS, which isn't too bad if you ask me.

In the CPU department, things are different.
AI test:
E8400 scores are about 160% of my score; Q6600's are ~300% of my score.

PhysX test:
Obviously, when comparing to systems with non-PhysX enabled drivers, my system obliterate them on this test.
Comparing to systems with PhysX enabled drivers, Q6600 systems score ~30 more OPS, while E8400 systems score ~40 more.




Now, I'm absolutely clueless as to what these scores mean, but I'm hoping they'll have some meaning to you guys.

So, my final question: In light of these results, do you reckon it'll still be worth switching to a Q6600 or E8400 in order to improve gaming performance? Personally, I'm tempted to wait for a while and do a proper system upgrade, because I don't see any huge improvements; but as I said, I have no clue as to how 3DMark results can be used for comparison.



Full system specs (all running at stock speed):
CPU: Pentium EE 955, 3.46 GHz - This is a Dual Core + HTT enabled CPU. 3DMark detects it as a Pentium D 940 which is VERY wrong.
Mobo: Intel D975XBX2
GPU: XFX GeForce 9800GTX
RAM: 4GB PC6400, A-Data
PSU: Coolermaster RealPower 550W

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Werelds
In fact, there's a few Q6600 systems with the same driver which I beat in graphics scores, I'm guessing this is because my CPU runs at a higher clock speed?

Definitely not. I'm guessing it's because those noobs were running the benchmark with AA forced through the driver.

So, my final question: In light of these results, do you reckon it'll still be worth switching to a Q6600 or E8400 in order to improve gaming performance?

That all depends on how you game. If it's @ 2560x1600, running AA, then you'll be completely GPU-bound in any game you run, except for possibly Supreme Commander or M$'s FSX. If you're running @ 1680x1050, or 1920x1200, and only running 2x or 4x AA, then you were CPU-bound with your old card, and you're even moreso with the 9800GTX.

edit: What do you score in 3dMark 06? I score 13,750 with my Q6600 @ 3.2 Ghz, and my 8800GT @ it's stock speed (650 core, 1900 VRAM).

 

[Werelds]

I'll download 3DMark06 later tonight, see what that gives 🙂

 

[Drsignguy]

Switching to either the Q6600 or the E8400 would be a definite improvement over your current processor as stated above, but As they have said, if your going to game, your best bet is the E8400 as most games haven't taken advantage of 4 cores just yet. But this is not to say that in the near future that they wont either. I have read that some are starting to take advantage of the Quad cores so the question to you is how soon after this upgrade are you going to upgrade? The price difference between the 2 isn't that much and to me, the quad core would be the better of the 2 as the multitasking advantages are there at anytime.

Your current motherboard, the Intel D975XBX2 is a great motherboard for stability. As far as over clocking ability, you will have some difficulty over clocking with it. I have this board and I have the Q6600 along with the E2160 chip. Both I have placed into this board and both were a pain to get OC's above 3.0. Not to say you can't I am sure, but after getting the P35 based, that board doesn't compare for over clocking abilities. If you do OC, you will see what I mean by this.

When I decided to upgrade, I went with the Q6600, and I feel, for me, that was a better choice and I couldn't have been happier with that decision. 🙂

 

[Werelds]

Originally posted by: myocardia
That all depends on how you game. If it's @ 2560x1600, running AA, then you'll be completely GPU-bound in any game you run, except for possibly Supreme Commander or M$'s FSX. If you're running @ 1680x1050, or 1920x1200, and only running 2x or 4x AA, then you were CPU-bound with your old card, and you're even moreso with the 9800GTX.

edit: What do you score in 3dMark 06? I score 13,750 with my Q6600 @ 3.2 Ghz, and my 8800GT @ it's stock speed (650 core, 1900 VRAM).

For the record, I play on 1680x1050 (or lower in case my PC can't cut it, like with Crysis).

3DMark06 result: http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=7535607
6822 3DMarks, which is quite substantially lower than yours. Any chance you could link me your ORB result? 🙂

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Werelds
Any chance you could link me your ORB result? 🙂

No, I don't "do" ORB, but here's the screenshot Like I said earlier, that's with my 8800GT @ it's stock speed of 650 core/1900 Mhz DDR VRAM, which is slightly faster than the basic 8800GT's 600 core/1800 VRAM.