Upgrade my Q9450 to 2500k or ???

[Blue_Max]

I have the itch to upgrade (though I don't really NEEEeeeed to!)

I have a Q9450 running at 3.2GHz (and seems to top out there - I should seek OC advice on that one) but am super-intrigued by 2500K's impressive reviews as well as the new SSD caching feature of the Z68 chipset.
(8GB DDR2-800, Radeon 6870)

It it going to be a noticable gain though? I mostly just play games like WoW and Fallout NV, etc. I also run the Sibelius music composition software.

Is the SSD caching making a big difference to you users of it? I'm using a 64GB SSD as a boot drive now... (Win7 rating of 6.7)

....or should I hold out for this Bulldozer I keep hearing about?

REPLIES VERY WELCOME! The itch is so bad I may head there right after work for a tasty sale.

Thanks, Anandtech!

Edit: The itch is still there after reading this comparison from Tom's Hardware charts:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2010/compare,2417.html?prod%5B4788%5D=on&prod%5B4413%5D=on

 

[richierich1212]

If your itch is so bad just get an i3-2100 since you just play games. Your Q9450 is probably worth just as much as an i3-2100 + mobo by itself, lol.

 

[Arkaign]

Ehhh don't go from a quad to a dual. Just wait it out, your 9450 is a perfect match to that 6870. This fall you can jump the whole shebang to a new quad/hex/octocore, HD 7850/GTX670, DDR3-2000+, etc.

 

[richierich1212]

Ehhh don't go from a quad to a dual. Just wait it out, your 9450 is a perfect match to that 6870. This fall you can jump the whole shebang to a new quad/hex/octocore, HD 7850/GTX670, DDR3-2000+, etc.

But I thought SB was the greatest thing since sliced bread?

 

[Arkaign]

But I thought SB was the greatest thing since sliced bread?

It's great, but I don't think I can recommend a DC variant to a gamer at this point, coming from his 9450 @ 3.2ghz. A SB quad, particularly a 2500k would make a lot more sense if he could afford it, but honestly with just a 6870 I don't see his gaming performance improving a lot either way, hence the idea that just waiting makes more sense.

 

[Mr. President]

I think it will ultimately depend on the apps you run. Fallout and WoW aren't exactly being limited by your current CPU and your (overclocked) C2Q has already closed a huge portion of the gap between it and a Sandy Bridge.

Conversely, I recently upgraded from an unoverclocked Q6600 to a 2500k and I saw significant gains despite a lowly HD6850. Even the boot times on my platter based hard drive dropped by a large amount while GTA4 performance went up by probably 50%. Your current CPU, however, is already running 33% faster than my Q6600 (plus the larger cache and IPC) so you won't see anywhere near the same kinds of gain. And the only reason I upgraded in the first place was because I had a secondary system with a Core 2 Duo that would take the Q6600.

Yet, despite all that, I'm not entirely sure if it was worth it. So, I would say no.

 

[Blue_Max]

Thanks for the good words, gang. Looks like I'll hold out for the next "big thing" for 2012 or something.

 

[edplayer]

I have the itch to upgrade (though I don't really NEEEeeeed to!)

wait as long as you can.

Looks like I'll hold out for the next "big thing" for 2012 or something.

Yes! By Q2 of next year you should be able to compare Ivy Bridge to AMD's latest offerings.

 

[sm625]

Just bend over and pay the intel tax. Dont splurge on a motherboard because you know that it will need to be replaced the next time you want to upgrade. And dont forget to worship intel for doing this to you.

 

[nyker96]

if you just game, I'd use the money and get a better gcard.

 

[tweakboy]

if you just game, I'd use the money and get a better gcard.

Nice correct. His Quad is enough for any game. The GPU has to keep up and it will and you will note no games take up all 100 percent load except Crysis 2

every other game its 30 percent to 70 percent .. 1080p 4xAA 16xAF vsync ON, triple buffer on. High Quality

All games fly,, soo smooth like my old CRT amazing,,, , gl

 

[Blue_Max]

if you just game, I'd use the money and get a better gcard.

Is my shiny new 6870 really that bad? I run everything at max and it's smooth as butter (1900x1200, 4x AA)

Smooth as butter... so why do I want to upgrade again?

The biggest draw for me is faster system response in everyday computing, lower power draw... the Intel smart response SSD caching is a huge turn-on!

The new mobo would also let me crossfire a second 6870 card. I love the ASUS-CU super-cooled cards - the build quality is amazing!

 

[fastman]

I run a Q9450 also and was feeling the itch. What I did was to get a SSD and switched to Win7 64 bit from XP. I could see a huge decrease in loading times. I have only loaded one game, UT2004. It does load a little faster and runs smooth if that helps. I haven't loaded many other Apps but I'm sure it will be accross the board increases. I just got an additional 4gigs of RAM too so that will help big time in Photoshop apps. I run a 5850Vid card and I'm pleased with the over all performance of the system.

So I'd grab an SSD and wait it out a bit longer.

 

[Blue_Max]

I already have a 64GB SSD. Large enough for Win7 - too small for any apps.

If I used it as a cache, ALL the apps I use often would benefit - right?

 

[Zap]

I mostly just play games like WoW
...
I'm using a 64GB SSD as a boot drive now...

I hope you also have WoW installed on the SSD. Makes a difference.

 

[Blue_Max]

I hope you also have WoW installed on the SSD. Makes a difference.

WoW is so huge, it might JUST BARELY fit onto the remainder of the SSD, leaving no room for any file-shuffling Win7 may need to do... that has me a bit worried.

 

[Blue_Max]

NVM... I bit the bullet and bought it. $95 off was a sale too hard to refuse! Besides, the old system will sell so my upgrade will be nearly-free.

I'll tell you how much difference I feel...

 

[Blue_Max]

Dang... so far I'm not feeling much improvement...

The SSD hasn't had much chance to cache yet though, nor have I attempted to overclock.

 

[T101]

I went from Q6600 @ 3.6 Ghz to 2600K @ stock. And the 2600k is running circles around my older Core2Quad chip.

 

[Jhatfie]

Dang... so far I'm not feeling much improvement...

The SSD hasn't had much chance to cache yet though, nor have I attempted to overclock.

I just upgraded to a 2500k @ 4.7Ghz from my i5-750 @ 3.9Ghz. I decided to give the SSD caching a try as well. I found it took about 3 program loads for it to cache properly, but most programs/games I use now boot just about instantly or lots faster at least. The 2500k is certainly much faster when encoding video, but even though games are running faster, I do not notice it as they were already maxxed out and running silky smooth anyway. But for lots of tasks, the 2500k is overkill. Just the way I like it. lol.

 

[Blue_Max]

I found so little difference, I returned the upgrade for my $500 back. My Q9450 is running so well (in some cases BETTER) I'd be a fool to waste the money.

I'd be better off with a fancier video card, though mine is already perfectly good.

Thanks for chiming in everyone!

 

[tweakboy]

I found so little difference, I returned the upgrade for my $500 back. My Q9450 is running so well (in some cases BETTER) I'd be a fool to waste the money.

I'd be better off with a fancier video card, though mine is already perfectly good.

Thanks for chiming in everyone!

You think like me, my friend. Nice post. No difference its already blazing fast.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

well, there goes all question of whether i should upgrade my q9550.

 

[mrSHEiK124]

It depends on what you're using it for. For gaming? If you can justify the $.

For video editing? Went from a Q9550 to a 2600K. Adobe Premiere is running nearly twice as fast, if not faster. I used to have to plan something while waiting for renders. Now I can barely have lunch. Time saved here is money saved.

SSD caching is a marketing gimmick. If you have the $ for 2500k/2600k + Z68, you have the $ for buying a 64 GB Crucial M4, using it as an OS drive, and using a huge drive for storage. And is also filed under "doing it right." The 20 GB caching SSD Intel is selling is ~$100 last I checked. Hardly worth it, unless you find a deal on one of the motherboards with onboard Intel SLC SSD.

 

[Jhatfie]

It depends on what you're using it for. For gaming? If you can justify the $.

For video editing? Went from a Q9550 to a 2600K. Adobe Premiere is running nearly twice as fast, if not faster. I used to have to plan something while waiting for renders. Now I can barely have lunch. Time saved here is money saved.

SSD caching is a marketing gimmick. If you have the $ for 2500k/2600k + Z68, you have the $ for buying a 64 GB Crucial M4, using it as an OS drive, and using a huge drive for storage. And is also filed under "doing it right." The 20 GB caching SSD Intel is selling is ~$100 last I checked. Hardly worth it, unless you find a deal on one of the motherboards with onboard Intel SLC SSD.

Yeah, the 2500k OC'd to 4.7Ghz absolutely smashes my i5-750 @ 4Ghz in video encoding. Blu ray rips to .mkv were literally almost cut in half.

SSD caching does work very well. HUGE drop in startup times, application loads, etc for me. But it is well known that it is not as good as a straight up SSD boot solution which is fast all the time and does not have to cache. My M4 is 64GB and my build with programs (no games) is close to the edge of its capacity now and it is a fresh build, so using it as cache works better for me as I do not want to have to monitor it all the time. I will however get a 128GB soon and use it as a boot drive, then cache my 1TB with the 64GB and see how that goes for loading my plethora of games, etc.