• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Q9550 tangible perf. increase from an E5200?

Warren21

Member
Jan 4, 2006
118
0
0
Hey guys.

I'm sitting on a little pile of cash that's itching me to upgrade. I have my eyes set on a CPU-NB W/C loop and a Q9550. My E5200 is a pain in the butt to OC, so I haven't pursued anything over 3.3 for now. With W/Cing I'm hoping for 4.0 and go on a Q9550.

W/Cing cost aside (because I want that regardless) my question is: Is there a better place I could be spending this ~200$ (maybe even a little more if necessary) on my PC to maximize performance increase?

I recently added a second 4850 for about 80$ and they both should last me until Fermi/possible 5890 and I'll decide on a new GPU then. 4GB is already bottlenecked on my Vista 32-bit, and going from 4-8 even in 64 isn't a great improvement. The other option is maybe an Intel X-25M G2?

Any insight appreciated!

*Edited for grammar...
 

Smartazz

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2005
6,128
0
0
It depends on what kind of games you play and how often you game. An SSD could improve overall system snappiness, but if your primary concern is gaming, I'd go with the Q9550.
 

Warren21

Member
Jan 4, 2006
118
0
0
Originally posted by: Smartazz
It depends on what kind of games you play and how often you game. An SSD could improve overall system snappiness, but if your primary concern is gaming, I'd go with the Q9550.
Thanks for the response.

My primary concern is indeed gaming. I also enjoy my PC as a media hub for movies and music but priority no. 1 is gaming performance. I play mostly FPS, Racing, RTS and RPGs. To give a little sample:

FPS - BF2/2142 (older titles), CoD 4: MW, soon MW2, the complete STALKER series, Crysis (Original and Wars/Warhead), Crysis 2 with CryEngine 3 when that hits.

Racing - Mostly NFS titles (which are horribly optimized since MW/Carbon), GRID, DiRT 2 eventually

RTS - SupCom, EE II, StarCraft (not performance limited, hahaha), StarCraft II when it comes out

RPG - EVE Online, WoW, DDO, Oblivion, Fallout 3, Diablo II (again, old), Diablo III eventually

I enjoy playing a mix of some classics and the newest games. My favourite series is probably STALKER, which is really taxing. I mentioned future games because I intend to keep playing newer titles on this as they come out, so obviously quad core will put its longevity to use - I'm just wondering about the overall performance benefit I can see today.

I plan on building a whole new rig in my (currently lonely) Temjin TJ10-B/W after this CPU upgrade, and keep using this for a LAN Rig.
 

SolMiester

Diamond Member
Dec 19, 2004
5,331
17
76
If you are going to use that case for LAN Rig, why ruin the look with W/C?.....where will you run the hose etc, not much room in there?....I do like the TJ-10....very nice....If it were me, I'd get a SSD and move everything into the TJ-10....For me W/C was such a pain in the ass....
 

Warren21

Member
Jan 4, 2006
118
0
0
Originally posted by: SolMiester
If you are going to use that case for LAN Rig, why ruin the look with W/C?.....where will you run the hose etc, not much room in there?....I do like the TJ-10....very nice....If it were me, I'd get a SSD and move everything into the TJ-10....For me W/C was such a pain in the ass....
I'm not too concerned about looks so much as power-to-size ratio, haha. It may be an mATX rig but it's quite fully-featured as far as hardware specs.

The W/C is going to be a tight fit, but I've got it all planned out and it should work nicely. As it is, it was hard fitting an AC F7 Pro beside three 3.5" HDDs (the TJ08 only has enough bays for 2 internal... figure that one out ;) ) and a full-sized non-modular PC Power & Cooling 750. It's all an accomplishment I'm quite proud of :). I find building fast small systems very rewarding because of the strategic cable routing and build complexity involved.

I'm going to mount a 220 rad externally and have the inlet & outlet loop to the inside of the case where I'll have the blocks/pump/etc. The water block for the CPU will actually take up less space than the F7, and the pump will fit infront of my 2 4850's... Tubing will sneak by the side panel and behind the HDDs to the radiator and blocks respectively.

Back on topic... Do you believe the SDD will really provide more of a speed-up vs. the extra 2MB cache per core, the two extra cores and the clock speed advantage (~700 MHz) to be had with a (hopefully) 4 GHz Q9550?
 

Ben90

Platinum Member
Jun 14, 2009
2,866
2
0
a ssd wont really improve a gaming experience that much if any at all; but from what ive heard it makes for an amazing windows experience.

I vote for the q9550
 

yh125d

Diamond Member
Dec 23, 2006
6,918
0
76
Q9550. SSD's, while definitely very worthwhile, are more of just a "general" upgrade, not specifically a gaming upgrade
 

swanysto

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,942
7
81
Originally posted by: Ben90
a ssd wont really improve a gaming experience at all; but it makes for an amazing windows experience.

I vote for the q9550
Fixed... and +1
 

v8envy

Platinum Member
Sep 7, 2002
2,720
0
0
I vote for not scratching your upgrade itch at all. A Q9550 will only help on a few select titles, and not in a very dramatic way. You just did a GPU upgrade. An SSD will be nice, but once again not for gaming.

Put the $ in your mattress with an IOU for new computer hardware. Upgrade once you need to, based on an identified game your system can't handle.
 

cubeless

Diamond Member
Sep 17, 2001
4,308
1
81
Originally posted by: v8envy
I vote for not scratching your upgrade itch at all. A Q9550 will only help on a few select titles, and not in a very dramatic way. You just did a GPU upgrade. An SSD will be nice, but once again not for gaming.

Put the $ in your mattress with an IOU for new computer hardware. Upgrade once you need to, based on an identified game your system can't handle.
not...

a 9550 @ > 3.6 will let those 4850's soar... what you will see is a nice bump in the minimum frame rates that makes the games all play better... get one cheap if you live near a microcenter...

and you should be able to plug it into the board you have... and oc to >3.6 without w/c (my kid's is doing 3.6 with the stock cooler), just reasonable aircooling (like a cheap vendetta @ zipzoomfly right now...)... very cost effective upgrade for u...
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,565
1,042
126
Q9550! There aren't any new S775 cpus coming out, and an overclocked q9xxx series can hang with the best of the best right now, and it should be viable for a pretty decent amount of time. Stock i7 920 is probably not as quick as a 3.6ghz q9550, and that's pretty close to top of the line right now.

SSDs will get bigger, faster, and cheaper, so maybe in a year or so you can check back for the new models. Personally, I won't jump until I can get a fast 250gb or larger SSD for ~$99. Sounds crazy now, but mark my words, it will happen.
 

gaaraownzz

Member
Oct 7, 2009
46
0
0
I would get the Q9550, and depending on if you are close to a micro center store, they have them onsale for 169.99+tax. Thats 70$ off retail value. check microcenter.com Just thoughti should put that out. =)
 

error8

Diamond Member
Nov 28, 2007
3,205
0
76
Q9550 will extend the system's life at least an year and a half. There is no reason not to get it.
 

LCD123

Member
Sep 29, 2009
90
0
0
SSD drives are over $500 for a good one with SLC memory. The MLCs are much cheaper but no faster than your 7200rpm HDD. SSD is still very new technology, could be 5 years before you see your average user buying one of those for $99. Could be 15 years before SSD replaces HDD.

Just overclock your CPU some more. Why not raise the FSB to 300+ MHz and give your CPU a volt bump so you can get around 3.5GHz? You could buy a higher stock clock model that may do 3.8GHz and comes with more cache than your e5200.
 

faxon

Platinum Member
May 23, 2008
2,110
1
81
just BTW, most ppl with P45 boards capable of doing 500+FSB are hitting 4.2GHz on their Q9550s now with pretty comparable voltages to my Q9650. i think the only serious difference at this point with 95%+ yields on wolfsdale CPUs is gonna be the multiplier anyway, and from the games you play i can tell you, going from my e5200 @ 3.3ghz to my Q9650 was a dream come true
 

yh125d

Diamond Member
Dec 23, 2006
6,918
0
76
Originally posted by: LCD123
SSD drives are over $500 for a good one with SLC memory. The MLCs are much cheaper but no faster than your 7200rpm HDD. SSD is still very new technology, could be 5 years before you see your average user buying one of those for $99. Could be 15 years before SSD replaces HDD.

Just overclock your CPU some more. Why not raise the FSB to 300+ MHz and give your CPU a volt bump so you can get around 3.5GHz? You could buy a higher stock clock model that may do 3.8GHz and comes with more cache than your e5200.
So wrong it's not even funny. SLC are faster than MLC yeah, but MLC is still WAY faster than ANY conventional HD. And It'd not gonna be 5 years before they are common... just in the last year they have gone from nigh impossible to find (and afford) to pretty easy to fit in a budget, and a LOT more common as they have infiltrated the notebook/netbook/OEM PC market a notable amount
 

swanysto

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,942
7
81
Originally posted by: yh125d
Originally posted by: LCD123
SSD drives are over $500 for a good one with SLC memory. The MLCs are much cheaper but no faster than your 7200rpm HDD. SSD is still very new technology, could be 5 years before you see your average user buying one of those for $99. Could be 15 years before SSD replaces HDD.

Just overclock your CPU some more. Why not raise the FSB to 300+ MHz and give your CPU a volt bump so you can get around 3.5GHz? You could buy a higher stock clock model that may do 3.8GHz and comes with more cache than your e5200.
So wrong it's not even funny. SLC are faster than MLC yeah, but MLC is still WAY faster than ANY conventional HD. And It'd not gonna be 5 years before they are common... just in the last year they have gone from nigh impossible to find (and afford) to pretty easy to fit in a budget, and a LOT more common as they have infiltrated the notebook/netbook/OEM PC market a notable amount
Agreed. My 60gb Vertex is far and away faster than the Raptor X I had. It doesn't make any difference in games, but it starts the OS and programs like Photoshop and Eclipse MUCH faster. The only down side is the price per GB. Oh, and the only time I ever hear a hard drive spinning is when I access stuff on my WD 1tb storage drive.
 

LCD123

Member
Sep 29, 2009
90
0
0
Originally posted by: yh125d

So wrong it's not even funny. SLC are faster than MLC yeah, but MLC is still WAY faster than ANY conventional HD. And It'd not gonna be 5 years before they are common... just in the last year they have gone from nigh impossible to find (and afford) to pretty easy to fit in a budget, and a LOT more common as they have infiltrated the notebook/netbook/OEM PC market a notable amount
Maybe this is the case today but I remember a few months ago, I read a review saying MLC was equal to 7200rpm HDD. My 2nd cousin last year said that fast SSD cost $5000 per GB! He says the cheaper SSD were slower than his 10,000 RPM SCSI HDD.

Patriot Torqx PFZ128GS25SSDR 2.5" 128GB SATA II Internal Solid state disk (SSD) - Retail for $400 costs $3.13 a GB. I remember last year prices were 3x higher!

Western Digital VelociRaptor 150GB 3.5" SATA 3.0Gb/s Internal Hard Drive -Bare for $180 costs $1.20 a GB!

SAMSUNG Spinpoint F2EG 1.5TB 3.5" SATA 3.0Gb/s Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive for $109 costs 7.3 cents a GB!

The best deal is certainly the large capacity medium speed HDDs costing a tiny fraction the price of high speed HDDs and SSDs.

I have not seen any SSDs in any computer or notebook except for a 16GB in the mini Atom notebooks. When will they make a 3.5" SSD for desktops instead of the 2.5" currently in maybe the very high end, expensive notebooks?

Edit: I read that SSD will make up 10% of the notebook market next year and 25% in 2012. So I stand correct that itll take 5 years for SSD to be common, as in well over 50% of the market.

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2...w_wd_velociraptor_hdd/

Here's a review of velociraptor HDD vs. SSD

http://www.computerworld.com/s...nomyId=19&pageNumber=1

That review says SSD will take many years to catch on due to high cost.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,565
1,042
126
There are plenty of fast SSD-based notebooks. Here's one from about a year and a half ago.

http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=4423

For the next 5 years or so, SSD will grow in popularity, and most of the growth will be from people using them in combination with traditional hard drives. This is purely speculation, but so is everything else until it hits reality. In areas where a lot of resources are brought to bear in marketing, research, and bringing new products to bear, you see really rapid changes in choices and prices.

It's October 2009, and we have 64gb SSDs for $150, 128gb for $300. By October 2010 what will we see? I'd be shocked if we didn't see prices come down at least 50%, along with further increases in mainstream SSD performance. By that time we should also be seeing 2TB hard drives around the $100 mark.

As for 3.5" size, I think it's more likely that we see drives (and maybe even more desktop cases) come with 2.5" > 3.5" mounting hardware.

 

LCD123

Member
Sep 29, 2009
90
0
0
If they started making SSD drives at 3.5" size, they could offer higher capacities. Why limit them to only 2.5"? I could see myself getting a SSD cheap within a decade. When one can buy a 2TB HDD for $100 next year, id be hard pressed to spend dozens of times more for a much smaller drive. It would be nice for SSDs to be large and cheap enough to be the primary drive with no need for a HDD.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,565
1,042
126
Originally posted by: LCD123
If they started making SSD drives at 3.5" size, they could offer higher capacities. Why limit them to only 2.5"? I could see myself getting a SSD cheap within a decade. When one can buy a 2TB HDD for $100 next year, id be hard pressed to spend dozens of times more for a much smaller drive. It would be nice for SSDs to be large and cheap enough to be the primary drive with no need for a HDD.
Yeah that is the real question, when will SSDs get big enough / cheap enough to replace traditional hdds?

I am actually thinking that it's possible that we may see hybrid storage drives at some point. The SSD tech is actually pretty tiny, and gets smaller all the time. I could easily see a 3.5" HDD that had 2TB of traditional storage, as well as maybe 256GB of SSD for the OS/Application drive.

For the near future, SSD is not going to replace traditional hard drives, but they will continue to attract more people using them in combination with traditional drives. When $100 will buy a 256gb drive (perhaps next year?) that is a good bit faster than the fastest traditional desktop drives, you'll see an awful lot of people jumping on them.

Despite some mild temptation, I haven't yet put my $ towards an SSD, preferring other upgrades. I think the $100 price point for a reasonably sized drive will be the tipping point for a lot of folks. 256gb is big enough to put windows and quite a lot of apps and games on. 128gb is a bit tighter, and 64gb and below are probably too small for most enthusiasts.

The mobile market will continue to be the primary push for development of this tech, as it's got bonuses of lower battery usage and no moving parts for superior durability.
 

yh125d

Diamond Member
Dec 23, 2006
6,918
0
76
Originally posted by: LCD123
Originally posted by: yh125d

So wrong it's not even funny. SLC are faster than MLC yeah, but MLC is still WAY faster than ANY conventional HD. And It'd not gonna be 5 years before they are common... just in the last year they have gone from nigh impossible to find (and afford) to pretty easy to fit in a budget, and a LOT more common as they have infiltrated the notebook/netbook/OEM PC market a notable amount
Maybe this is the case today but I remember a few months ago, I read a review saying MLC was equal to 7200rpm HDD. My 2nd cousin last year said that fast SSD cost $5000 per GB! He says the cheaper SSD were slower than his 10,000 RPM SCSI HDD.

Patriot Torqx PFZ128GS25SSDR 2.5" 128GB SATA II Internal Solid state disk (SSD) - Retail for $400 costs $3.13 a GB. I remember last year prices were 3x higher!

Western Digital VelociRaptor 150GB 3.5" SATA 3.0Gb/s Internal Hard Drive -Bare for $180 costs $1.20 a GB!

SAMSUNG Spinpoint F2EG 1.5TB 3.5" SATA 3.0Gb/s Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive for $109 costs 7.3 cents a GB!

The best deal is certainly the large capacity medium speed HDDs costing a tiny fraction the price of high speed HDDs and SSDs.

I have not seen any SSDs in any computer or notebook except for a 16GB in the mini Atom notebooks. When will they make a 3.5" SSD for desktops instead of the 2.5" currently in maybe the very high end, expensive notebooks?

Edit: I read that SSD will make up 10% of the notebook market next year and 25% in 2012. So I stand correct that itll take 5 years for SSD to be common, as in well over 50% of the market.

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2...w_wd_velociraptor_hdd/

Here's a review of velociraptor HDD vs. SSD

http://www.computerworld.com/s...nomyId=19&pageNumber=1

That review says SSD will take many years to catch on due to high cost.
A review saying MLC = 7200rpm HDD is a shitty shitty review. Your 2nd cousin telling you good SSDs are $5000/gb just tells me that he's an idiot. the *really* cheap, very early SSDs *might* be slower than a really really good 10,000rpm drive, but that's really stretching reality


Yes, SSDs are a lot more expensive/gb than conventional drives. They are also many times faster and are a purpose built device, in a different class as general use conventional hard drives.


SSD's are now an option in many laptops, not just the ultra high end ones, as well as several netbook models. And if the particular laptop or netbook you want to buy doesn't offer it as an option, just buy one separate and pop it in


There's honestly no real need to make them in a 3.5" form factor for common use. The 2.5 FF gives them plenty of room for the chips, and allows them to use the same model for desktops and notebooks both. If you wanted to pack more flash in an SSD and had to go with a 3.5", it'd be prohibitively expensive anyway and it would represent a small portion of the market


A 1 year old review of a non-pupular, slow SSD really has no bearing.


Prices are roughly halved every year, the adoption rate will increase exponentially as drives get much cheaper, even faster, and more widely available at a very fast rate


Common doesn't mean its >50% of the market... by that logic only one thing is ever common in a given market at a time, which is stupid. In processors, Intel and AMD are both common, but the AMD market share is a lot lower than that. Even if the adoption rate is only 25% by 2012 (I think it will be higher) thats most definitely "common"
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
uzzi38 CPUs and Overclocking 15

ASK THE COMMUNITY