Should I move up to quad core? What should I get?

[quadomatic]

So, with the release of GTA IV, I've been thinking about quad cores. It's certainly not worth it to upgrade JUST for GTA IV, but in the near future, quad cores could be quite useful.

I'm not exactly swimming in cash (check my sig for my current specs...though it plays games just like the big guys, everything cost me about $200 or so. I definitely have more money now, but I'll be holding on to cash till after Christmas so I can buy some gifts for the family) so it's likely I'd be looking at an upgrade on the cheap.

I was looking at a Q6600, since I could just pop it into my motherboard, but unfortunately since my motherboard is a piece of crap, the only way I can overclock is by BSEL, as I did with my current processor.

FSB can reach 1333 on the motherboard by "overclock" on a normal cpu that runs 1333 by default (the box says), but I HEARD that 1333 bsel doesn't work on this motherboard, though I've only heard of one person attempting. I suppose it would be interesting to try it on my current processor, but if it did turn out to work, I'd be in some serious trouble as it would push the speed to 3.6Ghz. I'm not sure that it can be pushed that far.

So, it's likely I'd have to look for a new motherboard (which would be nice since to install my new accelero s1 with the fan attached took up both the pci-express 1x slot and BOTH PCI slots, so I had to remove my network card and my Sound Blaster X-Fi). That means, I could be in the market for AMD or Intel, but I'd be looking to go cheap, and possibly massive overclocks on air.

So, i7 doesn't seem to be the right choice for me as far as price is concerned. Since, from what I've read already, Intel doesn't seem to be so cool about overclocking on cheaper cpus of the i7 series that have yet to be released, would AMD Phenom be the way to go? Or would I want to go with a Yorkfield?

Phenoms definitely seem to be on the cheaper end. Do those overclock decently well? Since Phenom IIs are coming soon, could I probably expect a price drop?

Any comments and recommendations would be greatly appreciated, especially on those referring to get the most bang for the least buck.

Thanks

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: quadomatic
. Since Intel doesn't seem to be so cool about overclocking on their cheaper cpus from what I've read already, would AMD Phenom be the way to go? Or would I want to go with a Yorkfield?

Where did you read that? C2D and C2Q are amazing overclockers.

Q6600s can be had rather cheap. In fact, you may want to check out this deal on a Q6700:

http://www.tigerdirect.com/app...pNo=4330941&CatId=2405

Im thinking about picking one up for a dedi game box.

 

[quadomatic]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: quadomatic
. Since Intel doesn't seem to be so cool about overclocking on their cheaper cpus from what I've read already, would AMD Phenom be the way to go? Or would I want to go with a Yorkfield?

Where did you read that? C2D and C2Q are amazing overclockers.

Sorry, I meant on the ones following up the current quads, as in the cheap ones that are based on i7 series that have yet to be released.

I love C2D series for overclocking. That's why I picked up my E2200 and pushed it from 2.2ghz to 2.93 ghz with the worst motherboard around (thanks Fry's bundle!).

 

[n7]

Personally, i'd suggest trying to save up for a new, well, basically a new system.

Cheap nice OCs means you should stick with Intel...there's nothing massive about current AMD OCing.

A 45nm 12 MB L2 quad @ ~ 3.5+ GHz will hold up against Core i7s for a long time IMO, at least for gaming...that's likely what i'd suggest aiming for if you keep your systems for a while.

Or on the cheap, a better mobo + a dual core E8xxx series would do well for a while.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Get a gigabyte EP45-UD3P, they rock! Then get a Q9550, or a Q6600. The Q6600 is cheaper, but in terms of energy costs, if you overclock, the Q9550 may pay for itself over it's lifetime compared to the Q6600.

I'm building two quads based on Q6600, only because I got from for $200 in 2007, before the Q9550 became a reality. I'm waiting for the Q9650 to drop in price, so I can upgrade to a 4Ghz quad-core.

 

[Vee]

Threads like this is culture shock to me, I have zero interest in oc and generally I'm clueless why young males spend so much money pursuing insignifikant performance advantages through small upgrades. So I guess I shouldn't answer in this thread at all. And normally I never do.

Still, I'm killing time, and I like the answer n7 gives you.

Some background information. Q6600 has been a fabulous good deal for a very long time (for a cpu) and is still a good recommendation (at the right price). However, it's advantage is primarily good for modern media conversion and media editing software. Core 2 Quads perform best on single applications and single tasks that have been multithreaded for performance. They don't perform quite as well on multiple different tasks. The Core 2 architecture's main feature is also it's performance on vectorized tasks (that is why it does so well on benchmarks and media).

My estimate is that you won't get a worthwhile benefit by moving onto quads for now. I think you would notice the benefits from the improved Core 2 generation more, E8XXX, improved cache, clock & memory.
That is not to say I think you should upgrade at all. Since you admit cash is tight, why don't you just lean back and sit on your current system for a while longer?

Core i7 is a different beast. It's performance is all good, all over the spectrum. It won't just perform well on desktop benchmarks, like the Core 2. It will fully live up to the perceived performance, on everything. It's also going to be rather expensive choice for a good while. And if games is your main reason, Core 2 will still be very competetive. So my guess is that your eventual next system should still be a late generation Core 2 system.
In a close future there should be some good deals available on all parts, mainboard, cpu and memory.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Vee
Core 2 Quads perform best on single applications and single tasks that have been multithreaded for performance. They don't perform quite as well on multiple different tasks.

C2Q not good for multitasking? Why do you say that?

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Vee
Threads like this is culture shock to me, I have zero interest in oc and generally I'm clueless why young males spend so much money pursuing insignifikant performance advantages through small upgrades. So I guess I shouldn't answer in this thread at all. And normally I never do.

Since we are into stereotyping with a bang here, let me assist you by providing an example by way of stereo-type. Middle-aged female...you probably like to eat fatty food called healthy food (ceaser chicken salad for me please) and buy clothes/shoes despite having more than one set/pair already, yes?

I will never understand why women insist on buying new shoes, or multiple pairs of subtly differing shoes, when the function of a shoe (to provide foot comfort above and beyond that of walking barefeet) is readily provided by owning just a single pair of well fit sneakers with arch supports.

This perpetual upgrade cycle women are on, eat food then diet, spend $10 at the restaurant on the 1000 calorie salad so you feel healthier but you could make at home for $2, buy a new pair of shoes every other holiday sale cycle... I don't get it.

Or don't I?

Trying do denigrate another's hobby and lifestyle by way of painting generic stereotypes with a broad brush FTW@!

 

[NoSoup4You]

If money's tight, don't even consider it. But if the cash is there, go for it!

 

[quadomatic]

Erm...hmmm

Money is tight for the next few weeks since I'm only working one weekend this month and I need to buy Christmas gifts (senior in high school). I generally make around $250 or so per month, and it's not terribly difficult for me to save money, since I don't have that many expenses (cept I've been spending money like a crazy person for some odd reason...probably because I sold 3 vista ultimates and made a fair bit, but yea).

So, it's probably less that money's tight and more that I'm not comfortable spending a large chunk of money on parts. The thing that I like about my system is that I was able to put it together for a bit less than $200, and it still plays games very well. I feel like I have a mental block that tells me it's a bad idea for me to buy a Q6600 and a new motherboard for a considerable bit more than what I've spent on the whole system thus far.

That's why Phenom seems more appealing, but It doesn't seem like Phenom can hold a candle to the Core 2 Quads. But, with Phenom IIs coming out soon, prices of Phenom cpus should drop (right?) But since no one mentioned Phenom in this thread it doesn't seem like such a good idea, eh?

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: Vee
...I have zero interest in oc and generally I'm clueless why young males spend so much money pursuing insignifikant performance advantages through small upgrades.

Best CPU out there for desktop users right now = $1300 Core i7 EE 965 3.2 GHz

My Q9550 @ 3.95 GHz is far faster than that i7 965 @ 3.2 GHz for everything i do, & my CPU, RAM, mobo, cooler & fan, & who knows what else cost less than that.

Nothing insignificant about that at all.

Now yes, i realize you can OC that i7 to blow away my C2Q, but fact is, i look at it as me getting better than $1300 performance for a hell of a lot less

Or take my Celeron E1200 @ 3.2 GHz. That cost me $55. It would have cost me over triple that to get the same performance at stock from another CPU...

 

[quadomatic]

Originally posted by: n7

Originally posted by: Vee
...I have zero interest in oc and generally I'm clueless why young males spend so much money pursuing insignifikant performance advantages through small upgrades.

Or take my Celeron E1200 @ 3.2 GHz. That cost me $55. It would have cost me over triple that to get the same performance at stock from another CPU...

Exactly why I bought an E2200. I got it for $85 with a motherboard that I was able to BSEL mod with.

But yeah, what about Phenom again?

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: n7
Or take my Celeron E1200 @ 3.2 GHz. That cost me $55. It would have cost me over triple that to get the same performance at stock from another CPU...

E2xxx is the undisputed price/performance champ. Well, except for the up-and-comer, the E5200. I'm not sure which is cheaper per ghz, haven't bothered to calculate. Probably the E5200.

 

[Vee]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Vee
Threads like this is culture shock to me, I have zero interest in oc and generally I'm clueless why young males spend so much money pursuing insignifikant performance advantages through small upgrades. So I guess I shouldn't answer in this thread at all. And normally I never do.

Since we are into stereotyping with a bang here, let me assist you by providing an example by way of stereo-type. Middle-aged female...you probably like to eat fatty food called healthy food (ceaser chicken salad for me please) and buy clothes/shoes despite having more than one set/pair already, yes?

I will never understand why women insist on buying new shoes, or multiple pairs of subtly differing shoes, when the function of a shoe (to provide foot comfort above and beyond that of walking barefeet) is readily provided by owning just a single pair of well fit sneakers with arch supports.

This perpetual upgrade cycle women are on, eat food then diet, spend $10 at the restaurant on the 1000 calorie salad so you feel healthier but you could make at home for $2, buy a new pair of shoes every other holiday sale cycle... I don't get it.

Or don't I?

Trying do denigrate another's hobby and lifestyle by way of painting generic stereotypes with a broad brush FTW@!

"Trying do denigrate another's hobby and lifestyle by way of painting generic stereotypes with a broad brush "

Where did I "denigrate another's hobby and lifestyle "?
I merely pointed out that my answer was possibly not going to be 100% relevant due to my inability to relate to the OP.

 

[Vee]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: Vee
Core 2 Quads perform best on single applications and single tasks that have been multithreaded for performance. They don't perform quite as well on multiple different tasks.

C2Q not good for multitasking? Why do you say that?

I didn't.
I said they are not quite as good on multiple tasks as they are on single tasks multithreaded for performance.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: quadomatic
So, with the release of GTA IV, I've been thinking about quad cores. It's certainly not worth it to upgrade JUST for GTA IV, but in the near future, quad cores could be quite useful.

GTA IV makes the most use of a quad in games that I've seen thus far:

http://www.pcgameshardware.com..._13_processors/?page=2

I suppose you've already seen this.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: quadomatic
So, with the release of GTA IV, I've been thinking about quad cores. It's certainly not worth it to upgrade JUST for GTA IV, but in the near future, quad cores could be quite useful.

GTA IV makes the most use of a quad in games that I've seen thus far:

http://www.pcgameshardware.com..._13_processors/?page=2

I suppose you've already seen this.

Too bad it runs like crap on every modern system out there. The game doesn't even look that good. Bad port.

 

[Zstream]

You have a nice system already, upgrading is just going to make you frustrated. Looking at your specifications the video card is in need of upgrading. I would personally not upgrade your computer till later next year or until you can notice tangible benefits.

 

[quadomatic]

Originally posted by: Zstream
You have a nice system already, upgrading is just going to make you frustrated. Looking at your specifications the video card is in need of upgrading. I would personally not upgrade your computer till later next year or until you can notice tangible benefits.

I actually JUST upgraded the video card ($34 on newegg few months ago), and with the overclock it has, it's relatively close to the 8800GT. Since I only play games at 1280x1024 with no AA, and occasionally at 1600x1200, where apparently I usually won't take a noticeable (Left 4 Dead, Assassin's Creed, Gears of War) I don't really need a new video card.

I score close to 10,000 (9920) in 3DMark06 (or I would if I was still in XP...in Vista it's 9700 something. My CPU and SM2 scores dropped in Vista). My SM2 and SM3 scores clear 8800GTS scores by 700+, and are within 8800GT scores by a couple hundred or so.

So, I don't feel the need to necessarily upgrade GPU just yet.

But my CPU definitely seems lacking compared to quads.

Would Phenom 9950 be good? Phenom IIs seem too expensive. What about the 45nm Phenom's?

 

[edplayer]

Originally posted by: quadomatic

I'm not exactly swimming in cash...

The answer is, no.

I'm sure you could think of many better things to do with that money. Computer parts will continue to get faster and drop in price. Buying a new cpu/motherboard to get better fps in GTA4 is something kids do (my generic stereotype contribution for this thread)

 

[edplayer]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Middle-aged female...you probably like to eat fatty food called healthy food (ceaser chicken salad for me please) and buy clothes/shoes despite having more than one set/pair already, yes?

You own a PAIR of shoes?

Showoff!

I just hop around on one shoe

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: quadomatic
But my CPU definitely seems lacking compared to quads.

Would Phenom 9950 be good? Phenom IIs seem too expensive. What about the 45nm Phenom's?

Dual and Quad-core CPU comparison.

Includes e8600, q9400, q6600, q8200 and Phenom X4 9950.

Of the four games tested, the faster dual-core wins three of the benchmarks and the Q9400 takes the title in the one game that uses more than two cores (UT3).

The Phenom scores dead last in three benchmarks and next to last in HL2. Meaning that even in a quad-optimized game (UT3) the Phenom cannot even match the performance of a fast Intel dual-core chip.

My advice: if you want to play GTAIV, don't spend $200 upgrading your system to a quad-core CPU. Instead, jump on one of those $199 XBOX 360s and play the game in its native format, rather than an ugly patched-together port on PC.

 

[quadomatic]

Originally posted by: Denithor

Originally posted by: quadomatic
But my CPU definitely seems lacking compared to quads.

Would Phenom 9950 be good? Phenom IIs seem too expensive. What about the 45nm Phenom's?

Dual and Quad-core CPU comparison.

Includes e8600, q9400, q6600, q8200 and Phenom X4 9950.

Of the four games tested, the faster dual-core wins three of the benchmarks and the Q9400 takes the title in the one game that uses more than two cores (UT3).

The Phenom scores dead last in three benchmarks and next to last in HL2. Meaning that even in a quad-optimized game (UT3) the Phenom cannot even match the performance of a fast Intel dual-core chip.

My advice: if you want to play GTAIV, don't spend $200 upgrading your system to a quad-core CPU. Instead, jump on one of those $199 XBOX 360s and play the game in its native format, rather than an ugly patched-together port on PC.

Sorry, I did say in my original post that it's not worth upgrading for just GTA IV, but that quads could be more useful in the near future. And, a CPU upgrade wouldn't be a bad idea since my cpu seems to be lacking a bit.

 

[Phunk0ne]

I would say, hold out a bit longer and skip GTA IV, better yet . . . hog one of your friend's xbox 360 with GTA IV and save even more. By the time you think it is the future by getting a quad now, the money you could have saved up, would've gotten you one monsterous pentacore gaming rig instead (COUGH) . . .

upgrade @ the cheap is nice, but unless you know how to fully use/abuse/misuse your cheap set-up, you'll find yourself more frustrated with the idea you could've hold out a bit longer and get that dream rig.


quad on the cheap = FTL . . .

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: quadomatic

Originally posted by: Zstream
You have a nice system already, upgrading is just going to make you frustrated. Looking at your specifications the video card is in need of upgrading. I would personally not upgrade your computer till later next year or until you can notice tangible benefits.

I actually JUST upgraded the video card ($34 on newegg few months ago), and with the overclock it has, it's relatively close to the 8800GT. Since I only play games at 1280x1024 with no AA, and occasionally at 1600x1200, where apparently I usually won't take a noticeable (Left 4 Dead, Assassin's Creed, Gears of War) I don't really need a new video card.

I score close to 10,000 (9920) in 3DMark06 (or I would if I was still in XP...in Vista it's 9700 something. My CPU and SM2 scores dropped in Vista). My SM2 and SM3 scores clear 8800GTS scores by 700+, and are within 8800GT scores by a couple hundred or so.

So, I don't feel the need to necessarily upgrade GPU just yet.

But my CPU definitely seems lacking compared to quads.

Would Phenom 9950 be good? Phenom IIs seem too expensive. What about the 45nm Phenom's?

I'm with Zstream - that 9600gso has got to go. If you are looking to drop $250 in the next month or so jump on a Radeon HD 4870 (some are popping up at $180-$190 AR) and maybe a new power supply.

By the first of the year the Phenom Denebs (or Phenom II, which is 45nm)will be out and you can decide between a 65nm 9950BE/790gx combo versus the cost of an e8500 (or quad) upgrade - or maybe just a new mobo for your e2200.

And you will already have you video card