• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Something I learned today.....

T

Tweakin

Platinum Member
Starting from my base 6750@3.4Ghz, I decided to try a E8400 and shoot for the magical 4Ghz. Did I make it...sure, easy on that chip. Did I notice a difference, nope...unless I work and play with synthetic bench marks...nada...The chip also had both sensors stuck/dead/inop.

Maybe I should try a Quad...everyone loves a quad...right? Back to the egg for a 9650. I tried a 6600 awhile back and could not get it stable on my IP35-E above 3Ghz...and compared to my 6750, it was much slower in real world applications.

This jump to a 9650 also required a new board, and with it some new memory. It came, I put it together and nothing...dead chip. After RMA and replacement, up and running...3.6 stable. Again, more stuck/dead/inop sensors and no real difference after three days of multitasking. Benchmarks went through the roof...games played the same, which are HL, COD, and FarCry2 for the most part.

Even when things were running in the background, it just didn't seem like the system responded any better then my dual, especially for the price. One additional thing, I tried three different new coolers, and none of them worked as well as my old Scythe Ninja.

So, as you can see by me sig, I'm back to my original system...waiting for all my refunds, trying to sell my last parts and looking forward to a new laptop...
 
Originally posted by: Tweakin
Starting from my base 6750@3.4Ghz, I decided to try a E8400 and shoot for the magical 4Ghz. Did I make it...sure, easy on that chip. Did I notice a difference, nope...unless I work and play with synthetic bench marks...nada...The chip also had both sensors stuck/dead/inop.

Maybe I should try a Quad...everyone loves a quad...right? Back to the egg for a 9650. I tried a 6600 awhile back and could not get it stable on my IP35-E above 3Ghz...and compared to my 6750, it was much slower in real world applications.

This jump to a 9650 also required a new board, and with it some new memory. It came, I put it together and nothing...dead chip. After RMA and replacement, up and running...3.6 stable. Again, more stuck/dead/inop sensors and no real difference after three days of multitasking. Benchmarks went through the roof...games played the same, which are HL, COD, and FarCry2 for the most part.

Even when things were running in the background, it just didn't seem like the system responded any better then my dual, especially for the price. One additional thing, I tried three different new coolers, and none of them worked as well as my old Scythe Ninja.

So, as you can see by me sig, I'm back to my original system...waiting for all my refunds, trying to sell my last parts and looking forward to a new laptop...
Click to expand...

what did you expect?

your 6750 was already fast at 3.4Ghz .. if you are a gamer, you are already "there" with your 8800GTX

This is from my latest testing with a SYNTHETIC that show what happens with a much faster video card than yours

it's one example from 3DMark06's stock benchmark using Q9550S with GTX280

* GTX280's score at 2.83 Ghz is 14907
* GTX280's score at 3.40 Ghz is 17906
* GTX280's score at 4.00 Ghz is 18167

notice where performance levels off 😛

well, here is a lesser Videocard 4870/1GB with Q9550S scaling from stock to 3.6 to 4.0 Ghz

* HD4870's score at 2.83 Ghz is 14411
* HD4870's score at 3.60 Ghz is 15825
* HD4870's score at 4.00 Ghz is 16067

i also have examples with e8600 from 3.33Ghz to 4.25Ghz that show much the same thing .. somewhere around 3.6Ghz you hit "diminishing returns" with your system with a normal video card. i am testing with 4870x2 and CrossfireX-3 right now - mostly at upper midrange resolutions of 16x10 and 19x12
.. the same thing seems to apply

however, where a game uses all 4 cores; your dual will come up short - in comparison - no matter what you do

rose.gif


if you play STALKER: Clear Sky .. it will become clear to you; download and run the CS benchmark which is one of the best stand alone benches ever

if you *really* want to see improvement in your games, toss that aging GTX and get yourself a GTX280 or GTX285 .. 8800 series is not fit for modern games anymore
- not if you use DX10 and like details 😛
 
You are in the same boat I was. I went from a E6550 to a Q6600 to a Q9400 to a E8500 to a X3330 (same as Q9400) and it was basically all for nothing. I saw no improvements in all the games I play and the tasks I run. After all the extra costs in upgrading ram, motherboards and cooling, it was a fun journey but the overall lesson learned was RESEARCH the applications you need the processing power for before you commit and get suckered into the Dual vs. Quad debate. If you don't run the software that will utilize a quad core, your money upgrading will be wasted.
 
Originally posted by: Gillbot
You are in the same boat I was. I went from a E6550 to a Q6600 to a Q9400 to a E8500 to a X3330 (same as Q9400) and it was basically all for nothing. I saw no improvements in all the games I play and the tasks I run. After all the extra costs in upgrading ram, motherboards and cooling, it was a fun journey but the overall lesson learned was RESEARCH the applications you need the processing power for before you commit and get suckered into the Dual vs. Quad debate. If you don't run the software that will utilize a quad core, your money upgrading will be wasted.
Click to expand...

well, what video card do you run?

if it is the one in your sig - Zotac 8800GTS (G92) Nvidia GeForce - you can't expect much improvement in gaming.

a slow video card will not utilize a fast quad core to anywhere near its potential
- you will, however, see a *dramatic* improvement with a hd4870/gtx260 class video card or faster for your games

even a basic 3.6 Ghz Dual core is plenty for GTX280 class where the game does not utilize the "extra" 2 cores
- if it does, then you will be slower than a stock clocked quad core CPU with the same video card.

 
If you were looking for things to run a bit smoother etc. a fast HD would of sufficed. I dropped my Raptor 150 for my old 36G Maxtor Atlas 15k u320 drive and I have to say Vista is alot nicer.


 
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Gillbot
You are in the same boat I was. I went from a E6550 to a Q6600 to a Q9400 to a E8500 to a X3330 (same as Q9400) and it was basically all for nothing. I saw no improvements in all the games I play and the tasks I run. After all the extra costs in upgrading ram, motherboards and cooling, it was a fun journey but the overall lesson learned was RESEARCH the applications you need the processing power for before you commit and get suckered into the Dual vs. Quad debate. If you don't run the software that will utilize a quad core, your money upgrading will be wasted.
Click to expand...

well, what video card do you run?

if it is the one in your sig - Zotac 8800GTS (G92) Nvidia GeForce - you can't expect much improvement in gaming.

a slow video card will not utilize a fast quad core to anywhere near its potential
- you will, however, see a *dramatic* improvement with a hd4870/gtx260 class video card or faster for your games

even a basic 3.6 Ghz Dual core is plenty for GTX280 class where the game does not utilize the "extra" 2 cores
- if it does, then you will be slower than a stock clocked quad core CPU with the same video card.
Click to expand...

I've seen no gains after upgrading to a 9800GX2 either. I'm limited somewhere but obviously it's not CPU or GPU imho.
 
Originally posted by: Gillbot
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Gillbot
You are in the same boat I was. I went from a E6550 to a Q6600 to a Q9400 to a E8500 to a X3330 (same as Q9400) and it was basically all for nothing. I saw no improvements in all the games I play and the tasks I run. After all the extra costs in upgrading ram, motherboards and cooling, it was a fun journey but the overall lesson learned was RESEARCH the applications you need the processing power for before you commit and get suckered into the Dual vs. Quad debate. If you don't run the software that will utilize a quad core, your money upgrading will be wasted.
Click to expand...

well, what video card do you run?

if it is the one in your sig - Zotac 8800GTS (G92) Nvidia GeForce - you can't expect much improvement in gaming.

a slow video card will not utilize a fast quad core to anywhere near its potential
- you will, however, see a *dramatic* improvement with a hd4870/gtx260 class video card or faster for your games

even a basic 3.6 Ghz Dual core is plenty for GTX280 class where the game does not utilize the "extra" 2 cores
- if it does, then you will be slower than a stock clocked quad core CPU with the same video card.
Click to expand...

I've seen no gains after upgrading to a 9800GX2 either. I'm limited somewhere but obviously it's not CPU or GPU imho.
Click to expand...

that doesn't make any sense
😕

a 9800GX2 is 2x faster than a 8800GTS when it scales
- as long as you had at least 3.4Ghz from a dual core, you should have seen a definite increase with the GX2 in most of your games ,, unless something is wrong

what resolution are you running at?
what games do you run?

is this how it "feels" to you or did you run FRAPS in your favorite games?
- and if you only play old games .. there is no perceptible difference between 100 and 200 FPS 😛
 
Interesting..I was debating moving up to an E8400 from my E6420, but may just get an E6750 instead. My 6420 seems to have a huge FSB hole and I can't get it above 3.00GHz stable.
 
Originally posted by: BTRY B 529th FA BN
If you were looking for things to run a bit smoother etc. a fast HD would of sufficed...
Click to expand...

If you didn't notice my sig, I don't think a Velocraptor HLFS nor the 6400AAKS drives are slouches at all....
 
Originally posted by: angry hampster
Interesting..I was debating moving up to an E8400 from my E6420, but may just get an E6750 instead. My 6420 seems to have a huge FSB hole and I can't get it above 3.00GHz stable.
Click to expand...

If I was doing an upgrade to get past 3.4 or so, I think I would go with the e8400...that chip walked all the way up to 4Ghz.
 
So this experiment costed you how much?

I didn't notice a huge difference in performance compared to my old AMD X2 @ 2.7Ghz. In fact, that system feels snappier, like others have experienced. Only way I can detect the improved performance offered by my rig in sig is in games thanks to a newer GPU and higher FPS rates, and F@H.
 
Originally posted by: Tweakin
Originally posted by: BTRY B 529th FA BN
If you were looking for things to run a bit smoother etc. a fast HD would of sufficed...
Click to expand...

If you didn't notice my sig, I don't think a Velocraptor HLFS nor the 6400AAKS drives are slouches at all....
Click to expand...

That's what I'm saying, a faster drive would make a difference.
 
Originally posted by: BTRY B 529th FA BN
Originally posted by: Tweakin
Originally posted by: BTRY B 529th FA BN
If you were looking for things to run a bit smoother etc. a fast HD would of sufficed...
Click to expand...

If you didn't notice my sig, I don't think a Velocraptor HLFS nor the 6400AAKS drives are slouches at all....
Click to expand...

That's what I'm saying, a faster drive would make a difference.
Click to expand...

???
 
I have to ask, what did you really expect to see from changing CPUs (twice)? Is what you ended up seeing not in line with what you were expecting from benchmarks and reviews on the web?

I posted this in your last thread where you talked about your E8500, but if you want your general desktop use to "seem snappier", upgrading your CPU beyond a 3.4 E6750 really won't help that much. Your bottleneck is I/O speed when it comes to stuff like launching applications, and the only way to really increase that would be to get something like a nice SSD.
 
What a waste of time. Testing quad vs dual in games on an 8800. What kind of multitasking? Firefox and itunes at the same time do not count.

 
Originally posted by: geokilla
So this experiment costed you how much?

I didn't notice a huge difference in performance compared to my old AMD X2 @ 2.7Ghz. In fact, that system feels snappier, like others have experienced. Only way I can detect the improved performance offered by my rig in sig is in games thanks to a newer GPU and higher FPS rates, and F@H.
Click to expand...

$22 restock and my time...
 
Originally posted by: BTRY B 529th FA BN
Originally posted by: Tweakin
Originally posted by: BTRY B 529th FA BN
If you were looking for things to run a bit smoother etc. a fast HD would of sufficed...
Click to expand...

If you didn't notice my sig, I don't think a Velocraptor HLFS nor the 6400AAKS drives are slouches at all....
Click to expand...

That's what I'm saying, a faster drive would make a difference.
Click to expand...

Please tell me of a faster drive, other then SSD....
 
Yeah, im sure of it you are not asking

but for your benefit, a Seagate ST3300655LC/ST3300655LW will impress you and make things seem snappier, trust me on this
 
Originally posted by: vj8usa
I have to ask, what did you really expect to see from changing CPUs (twice)? Is what you ended up seeing not in line with what you were expecting from benchmarks and reviews on the web?

I posted this in your last thread where you talked about your E8500, but if you want your general desktop use to "seem snappier", upgrading your CPU beyond a 3.4 E6750 really won't help that much. Your bottleneck is I/O speed when it comes to stuff like launching applications, and the only way to really increase that would be to get something like a nice SSD.
Click to expand...

Consider it a personal test that I needed to do to verify that just because it's newer, it doesn't mean that you will see marked improvement from your current system. Even with the addition of the new Velocraptor, I don't see any marked improvement.
 
Originally posted by: Insomniator
What a waste of time. Testing quad vs dual in games on an 8800. What kind of multitasking? Firefox and itunes at the same time do not count.
Click to expand...

Good thing it wasn't your time then, cause you already sound cranky...

 
Originally posted by: Tweakin
Originally posted by: vj8usa
I have to ask, what did you really expect to see from changing CPUs (twice)? Is what you ended up seeing not in line with what you were expecting from benchmarks and reviews on the web?

I posted this in your last thread where you talked about your E8500, but if you want your general desktop use to "seem snappier", upgrading your CPU beyond a 3.4 E6750 really won't help that much. Your bottleneck is I/O speed when it comes to stuff like launching applications, and the only way to really increase that would be to get something like a nice SSD.
Click to expand...

Consider it a personal test that I needed to do to verify that just because it's newer, it doesn't mean that you will see marked improvement from your current system. Even with the addition of the new Velocraptor, I don't see any marked improvement.
Click to expand...

well .. frankly from the tone in your first post, i thought you were complaining

i guess you were just "confirming" what you already knew

i did the same thing .. but i found way more use for my 2 "extra cores" then you did
--you testing was pretty light 😛


there are definite places where quad core blows away dual .. even in gaming .. and it will only get more lopsided as time goes on

your 8800GTX is ancient for modern DX10 PC games .. if you want more, get a new card - GTX285 and really see a difference; depending on what resolution and level of detail you play at

rose.gif
 
Same boat here........and similar experiences from a friend's rig. A decent card + oc'd Core2 goes a long way for almost anything you want to do, unless you're a benchmark or F@H addict.
 
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Tweakin
Originally posted by: vj8usa
I have to ask, what did you really expect to see from changing CPUs (twice)? Is what you ended up seeing not in line with what you were expecting from benchmarks and reviews on the web?

I posted this in your last thread where you talked about your E8500, but if you want your general desktop use to "seem snappier", upgrading your CPU beyond a 3.4 E6750 really won't help that much. Your bottleneck is I/O speed when it comes to stuff like launching applications, and the only way to really increase that would be to get something like a nice SSD.
Click to expand...

Consider it a personal test that I needed to do to verify that just because it's newer, it doesn't mean that you will see marked improvement from your current system. Even with the addition of the new Velocraptor, I don't see any marked improvement.
Click to expand...

well .. frankly from the tone in your first post, i thought you were complaining

i guess you were just "confirming" what you already knew

i did the same thing .. but i found way more use for my 2 "extra cores" then you did
--you testing was pretty light 😛


there are definite places where quad core blows away dual .. even in gaming .. and it will only get more lopsided as time goes on

your 8800GTX is ancient for modern DX10 PC games .. if you want more, get a new card - GTX285 and really see a difference; depending on what resolution and level of detail you play at

rose.gif
Click to expand...

Thank you for gettin it...I was not complaining, But I can see where and how it is easy to read all the reviews and wonder..."how much faster could my system be..."

I consider this my hobby, and with the need for another computer, I thought I would run some of the more popular cpu's through my own systems to see what they could do.

My biggest regret was the sensor problems with 45nm units...everyone I tested had defective sensors...crazy, or just bad luck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top