Stick with Core 2 or upgrade to Core i7?

[Blurry]

Hey all,

Here's the situation: Current system has a Core 2 Duo 6300 o/c to 3.2GHz, but as of late, it's been a bit unstable (random reboots, etc).
Also, I've been doing a lot of video editing (HD material), so it feels like a dual core isn't cutting it.

Now my dilemma is this: should I just buy a Quad-Core Core 2 or upgrade my entire system to a Core i7 platform?

Here are my current specs:

C2D 6300 @ 3.2
8GB RAM
9800GTX
1.5 TB HDD
ASUS P-35 based motherboard (I think it's P5K Deluxe)
650W PS
The rest is irrelevant

Do you guys think I should just slap on a C2Q like an 8200/9400 etc?

Or should I do a complete system overhaul?

Thanks!

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

i7 will run you close to 600$ for a new mobo, cpu, and ram
a C2Q will run you ~ 200$ depending what you go with

its up to you

 

[happy medium]

Slap on that q9550

 

[Snakexor]

Do you only have 1 hdd? If so, put the read and output files that you are using for video editing on two different drives. You want one drive to do only reading and one drive to do only writing instead of one drive doing both. That and a q9XXX would be best for you....

 

[Blurry]

Seems like the general consensus is to stick with a q9XXX

@Snakexor

lol, no - I didn't bother to list the rest of the specs because they were irrelevant in making the decision

For capturing I use 4x150gb Raptor drives configured for RAID 0 in order to capture roughly 45-60 minutes of Raw 1080i HD footage from our cameras.

Another 2gb 7200RPM RAID 1 is used to store the compressed footage.

 

[Snakexor]

Lol ok, just wanted to make sure...

 

[Jabbernyx]

Since you have a P35 mobo, it's definitely more cost effective for you to stick with the Core 2 line (no need for new mobo, RAM and HSF).
It's a different story in the case of my antiquated setup (965P-DS3 R1.0 w/E6600)

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: happy medium
Slap on that q9550

This.

 

[ochadd]

I'd stick with your current setup and upgrade the processor. i7 setups are wicked but the real world time savings for your video editing probably won't be justified unless you are doing it all day long making a living at it.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Like most people i too agree, just get a Q9XXX and you're all set.

good luck

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Anyone with a C2Q that jumped to an i7 for encoding want to chime in? I think that would be most helpful. They say those are a beast when it comes to video encoding etc. If that is your main vein with your PC then that might be a better option if money isn't an issue.

 

[thekimbobjones]

I recently invested in a core i7 system and I mainly use it for 2d animation which relies heavily on frame capture, importing and encoding video in and out of after effects and premiere and multiple encoded exports for various formats.
The only thing I had to compare it too was an iMac 2.4 duo and obviously the thing runs circles around it. The i7 is incredibly fast with encoding/rendering compared to any other workstation I have used, including a close friends stock E8400 system. Their is a considerable speed difference. It buys you more time when rendering, encoding and exporting and if you edit you are doing this frequently and it is worth it if affordable.
But I suppose the luxury of cutting down render time is merely that - a luxury - which comes at a cost.
Having a i7 is awesome for this purpose but you can still make the same stuff, without any hinderance with a cheaper quad system that is within your budget.
The quality of the work you produce will be the same if your working with a core 2 duo or an i7.
Even if the latter improves the tempo of your workflow and may result in your concentration being broken for a minute less than on a slower duo/quad system, get the best thing you can comfortably afford.
I am sure in this day and age all modern desktop multi cores will certainly be suffice.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: BTRY B 529th FA BN
Anyone with a C2Q that jumped to an i7 for encoding want to chime in? I think that would be most helpful. They say those are a beast when it comes to video encoding etc. If that is your main vein with your PC then that might be a better option if money isn't an issue.

I went from a Q9550 to a Core i7. I do a lot of transcoding of videos and do a bit of encoding for home videos as well. The Core i7 simply can't be beat and the inclusion of hyperthreading just makes the Q9550 thrashing that much worse. I'd say at equal clockspeeds, you'll shave half the time it normally takes to transcode video. The other big difference is how responsive VMWare is running WinXP and/or 64bit Ubuntu. The VT implementation just seems a lot snappier, although I don't have any real numbers to back that up.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

2 VERY good answers from Kimbob, and Golgatha.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: BTRY B 529th FA BN
2 VERY good answers from Kimbob, and Golgatha.

After saying everything I said, I think the OP could "get by" very well on a Q9400 for very little out of pocket money. It's also worth mentioning that budget minded Core based systems are on the horizon very soon.

I probably wouldn't be on Core i7 myself if I hadn't found the original 6GB of DDR3 for $67 after MIR from Amazon (3/30/09) and the Core i7 920 from Microcenter for $199 on April Fools day (4/1/09). I also had a nice Q9550 setup I could sell to make up a significant portion of the Core i7 splurge. Finally, as far as games are concerned, I don't notice much if any difference. The Core i7 is nice, don't get me wrong, but it is also normally a bit pricey. You do get what you pay for if you do a lot of video encoding, 3D work, etc. though. Just don't expect much improvement when it comes to games (unless you're sporting 3 video cards or playing GTA4 ).

Since the OP said he does a lot of HD video manipulation, I'd say the Core i7 would be a great fit for him. The Q9400 will also run circles around his current CPU too, even without figuring overclocking into the equation. I'd say a definite yes to getting a Q9400 (to me a Q9550 or Q9650 don't make sense, as you're not really saving much money compared to a Core i7 920 system) and give a solid recommendation for splurging on the Core i7 too. There won't be anything that can touch a Core i7 for quite awhile (relatively speaking in CPU release timeframes anyway), and the next best thing (6 core i7 CPUs) will hopefully work on existing 1366 socket platforms.

One more thing for the OP to consider, is that IMO you need an aftermarket cooler, so please budget for that when considering the Core i7. The stock cooler just doesn't cut it. Hell, I didn't feel like my Zalman 9500 really cut it since OCCT would send the temperature into the low 80°C range (edit: I'm sure my dual 4870 video infernos right below the CPU didn't help the CPU temps one little bit). In a properly coded, multithreaded video render, the conditions similar to what OCCT can do are nearly realized. I use Fair Use Wizard 2.8 to convert ripped DVDs to MP4 with AAC audio for Playstation 3 streaming, and it utilizes 85%+ of the available CPU power (seeing 3-4x real time video encoding will give your e-penis some serious wood).

 

[ch33zw1z]

Originally posted by: Snakexor
Do you only have 1 hdd? If so, put the read and output files that you are using for video editing on two different drives. You want one drive to do only reading and one drive to do only writing instead of one drive doing both. That and a q9XXX would be best for you....

This is a good plan. I use the same setup, just put in a Q9550 upgrade from an E8400. I do mostly .divx using handbrake and noticed a huge drop in the amount of time it takes. I have 2x Seagate 7200.10 750's for the read writes.

 

[Philippart]

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: happy medium
Slap on that q9550

This.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: Philippart

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: happy medium
Slap on that q9550

This.

Wow, I thought the Q9400 was much less expensive than the Q9550. I was apparently spoiled by the $159.99 deal at Microcenter for the one in my HTPC.

 

[lopri]

I thought one of the troubles OP was having was system instability.. I think that needs to be taken care of first before he slaps in a new quad? As for encoding, i7 is the king of the hill and it'd be a worthwhile investment, IMO. Golgatha gave an excellent advice all around including what to expect.

@Golgatha: What hypervisor are you running for your VMs?

Edit: Nevermind. I'm dyslexic and missed you said "VMWare".

 

[arkcom]

If your motherboard or ram is going bad, a new cpu certainly won't help your problem. You can get open-box x58 boards for under $150 and 6gbs of ram for less than $50. Since you're upgrading anyway, and have an actual use for it, go for the i7.

 

[seanp789]

I had to make a similar platform upgrade decision recently. I bought an Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 3.0GHz and an ATI 4980 for about what it would of cost me to upgrade to i7. I will not upgrade to i7 until the next die shrink to 32nm.

 

[Blurry]

Many thanks for the great advice guys.


Thought about this long and hard and realized that a regular C2Q would be more than sufficient for my needs. The problem with my current setup is my CPU - the old C2D can't maintain stability @ its current overclock, but the stock 1.83GHz speed is just too damn slow.

However, after looking at the benchmark results - I just couldn't resist the i7 - a big chunk of my work involves transcoding/compressing video files and it seems that the i7 does a phenomenal job at that.

PLUS: I won't be overclocking anymore - computer needs to be whisper quiet since it's being moved into my room, so it'll be processing while I'm sleeping. That alone, I think made up my mind because clock for clock, a q9550 is no match for say an i7 920.

Thanks again!

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Congrats on the decision Blurry!

 

[Jabbernyx]

Welcome to Club i7