Upgrade to 775, i7 or wait for i5?

[Brodel]

Hi,

I currently have S939 system so to upgrade I will need a new motherboard, cpu and ram for either setup. Given that a good quality Q6600 setup would be about £250, would it be worth spending about £500 for an i7 system now, or waiting for i5?

I've been living with an AMD 3000+ @ 2.4ghz for about 4 years now so I like to keep my parts for quite a while. I just can't decide if the i7 would be more cost effective in the long run, or assuming the Q6600 system lasts me 2-3 years, would I be better off going with that and upgrading again in a few years time?

I use my computer for Illustrator, Photoshop, browsing the web and music. I do play games sometimes and do want to get the new Mafia II game when that comes out in Oct/Nov. However, that isn't really my main use.

Given that I don't find my current setup to be THAT bad for what I do, i7 seems like overkill, but I might be willing to make the jump if it saved money in the long run. I'm just not convinced that it would if I were to go with 775 upgrade in a few more years. i5 means that I would have to wait until oct/nov time and then adopt new tech which may have teething problems.

Any advice is much appreciated as there may be factors that I have overlooked.

Thanks

 

[vailr]

Your best advice was already in your earlier thread:
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=29&threadid=2296847
That is: staying away from 65 nm CPU's, especially buying a used 65 nm CPU.
Why not go with a P45 chipset motherboard + 4 (or 8) Gb DDR2 + whatever 45 nm CPU best fits your budget?
Choice between: Q8400 for quad core, or E8400 for dual core, for example.

 

[Brodel]

After making that post I decided that I may just buy a new Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3R. I want to go with a Quad, but I believe that the Q6600 overclocked is better than a Q8200 or Q8400.

 

[Kraeoss]

well it's according to what you do with your system.... the Q6600 has 4 mb more cache than the Q8400 but the Q8400 is a bit more efficient on power consumption + it's 45nm so a bit less heat...

 

[Brodel]

Originally posted by: Kraeoss
well it's according to what you do with your system.... the Q6600 has 4 mb more cache than the Q8400 but the Q8400 is a bit more efficient on power consumption + it's 45nm so a bit less heat...

I will be watercooling it so the heat isn't too much of a concern although I am keeping it in mind.

I understand peoples concerns over it being 'old tech', but the Q6600 still seems the best bang for buck Quad and can be easily found on forums where as I'd have to buy a Q8200/400 new. A lot of post on various forums still rate the Q6600 despite being 65nm.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

sig and is on water

EDIT: is a Q9650