Waiting for Penryn?

[ethugholla]

I'm building my first computer at the moment, and am in a predicament.

The Intel price drop on July 22 has prompted me to build a new computer that will hopefully be able to handle all the new generation games. (The computer I have right now is a piece of crap.) But to be honest, I have no interest in going dual-core, simply because that is a bit out of my budget, and from the feel of things, it is over-kill. The processor that I have been trying to research is the Intel C2D 6750, which will start out at a great price. But with the imminent release of Penryn (well, within the next few months... supposedly), I have been starting to think that investing in a computer that I will want to last for atleast 3, if not 4 years is going to be hard to do. I don't like using the term future-proofing, but I want it to run until it can no longer handle the games of the next upcoming generations. If it is impossible to do such a thing without going quad-core... then I am screwed. I have read many discussions regarding the E6850 vs. Q6600, and while most people seem like they lean towards the quad-core, it just seems out of my reach.

While I couldn't find much out on the date of release and price of Penryn, it certainly has made me rethink my entire build. Currently I am thinking about going for the Wolfdale, which is the Penryn chip that is dual-core, as opposed to that other one which is quad-core.

Here are my specs:

Case - CM Centurion 5
PSU - Corsair 520HX
Memory - G.SKILL 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) *(most likely 4 GB of RAM)
HD - Samsung Spinpoint T 500 GB
Mobo - Gigabyte P35-DS3R
Video Card - nVidia 8800 GTX 640mb

etc.

But what I need to know is:

1. Should I go with the 6750 or should I buy a cheaper, lower-end Intel C2D (such as the 4300 / 4400) and then wait until Penryn and make the upgrade?

2. If I do go for the latter choice, is the computer that I described good enough to take advantage of what Penryn has to offer? Should I go for the 4300, the 4400, or do you have any other recommendation?

3. A general critique of the computer itself, knowing the possible CPU choices.


Notes: This computer is going to be built for gaming. I'm not a hardcore gamer who wants the best graphics possible or the best eye candy; rather, I'm looking for a computer that has stability, a long life, and (hopefully) smooth gameplay.

Cheers!

 

[Extelleron]

There's simply no reason to go for the "high-end" dual-core parts after July 22nd. Buying an E6750 for $183 when you can get a Q6600 for $266 is simply a bad deal, especially if you're going to be keeping this PC for a long time. Multi-core is the future, and if you're really intent on keeping this PC for 3-4 years, then spending a bit extra and going quad is definately worth it.

However, I can't see buying a whole new PC right now. There's not many good games coming out right now... we're in a sort of "slump" until late this year/next year when the good games come out... Crysis, Unreal Tournament 3, Alan Wake.

If I were building a whole new system right now, I would do one of two things. If you really need a PC right now, I would buy a fairly low-end processor and video card. Buy an E4300 and maybe a 7600GT (very cheap) and use that until the next generation parts come out (45nm CPUs from Intel, GeForce 9800).

The best option, though, is just to wait. At this point, the GeForce 8800 cards have been out for almost a year, and all indications point to them not doing well in DX10. The HD 2900 will probably fare a bit better in future games like Crysis, but it's still not going to be a great experience. Wait for Penryn and AMD's future CPUs and see which one is better. On the graphics front, look at the GeForce 9800 and whatever AMD has at the time and see which one is better, and buy it.

Overall, I think you should just wait. There's no reason to spend $183 on a dual-core CPU at this point, and with 45nm quad-cores should be cheaper, cooler, consumer less power, and be faster. Also I think that the GeForce 9800 is going to be a heck of a lot faster than the 8800 in DX10 and definately be a lot more future proof.

Of course, there is no guarantee that 45nm desktop processors will be available for 2007. It's either late 2007 or very early 2008. The good thing about waiting until then is, as I said, most of the good games are coming around that timeframe anyway. No need to build a computer now for games that aren't out yet.

 

[Cheex]

Although I'm having trouble with this whole waiting idea myself but I totally agree with Extelleron. 45nm Quad-Core would be where I'm looking as well as a 9800GTS (maybe). He has given you some good insight into the matter.


BTW: Welcome to AT!!

 

[FreedomGUNDAM]

I second with Extelleron says.

 

[ethugholla]

Thank you very much for your input, it is very much appreciated.

I think I am going to go for the E4300 and then wait. The thing about the video card is that I am supposedly getting it for free from a friend. It happens to be a top of the line nVidia card. Part of the reason for building the computer was not only because of the great prices that Intel was putting out, but also because of this card. While it is true that not many video cards utilize DX10 very well, I plan on sticking with the video card.

What I am mainly concerned with is the price of Penryn, and the amount of cooling it requires. The reason that I am so skeptical and against quad-core is because I feel like it requires an immense investment in a top of the line cooling system. The computer that I have set up right now does not have a great cooling system, albeit it should be good enough for any dual-core system. I am hoping that Intel releases chips of all flavors for all prices.

My gameplan is kind of ironic in that I want to create a system that has a great longevity in terms of keeping up with the new generations, but also be restricted on a budget. I will most likely make the jump to quad-core when the time comes. Since I sort of need a computer now, do the parts in my current build look like they would be able to utilize quad-core?

 

[leegroves86]

9800gts??? whoah, I like to think i'm fairly up to date on stuff and no where have i heard mention of Nvidia replacing their 8 series anytime soon... They are kicking AMD's butt right now so what motivation do they have to release teh 9 series less than a year after the 8 series???

I do think quad core is the way to go though... but if it were up to me I'd buy a q6600 after july. Penryn is only a shrink, nothing really new architecture wise. From what I've heard the improvments are around 10%. Thats a nice bit but whens the last time your 2.4ghz C2D was to slow, let alone the quad core you want to get? I think that if you keep waiting and waiting for newer, bigger and better you will never own a computer.

I'd say pull the trigger now, buy a q6600 with a 320mb GTS. Get a motherboard that will support penryn and that way you are set.

Just my 2 cents

 

[Ika]

I'm in the exact same boat as the OP and I'm now considering what Extelleron posted, but I've still got some nagging thoughts...

The E6750 is right up there with the E6600 in terms of price/performance, and while multi-core may be the future, I believe that dual core will be enough for the next 3-5 years. I mean, it's been two years since the launch of dual core, and most games don't even take advantage of it yet. Why would quad-core be much different? Most consumers won't even have quad cores in 3-5 years.

Second, for $183, you can get an E6750 that has a decent chance of being overclocked to 4ghz, with the 8x multiplier and boosted FSB. A CPU that overclocks like this will probably have little problem lasting 3-5 years... and there's no guarantee that Penryn, which will be the first-generation 45nm part, will perform all that great. Right now, the performance boost isn't very high - from the Anandtech review of Penryn, Penryn is clocked about 10% faster than the Conroe processor, yet performs at most 18% faster (which isn't a lot, considering this is a new generation product).

Nothing's been said about Penryn heat performance or prices, but the TDP for Penryn is the same as the TDP for Conroe's G0 revision/stepping (both are 65W).

EDIT: oops, forgot about Quad. At this point, quad core CPUs lose to Dual-core CPUs, based on both heat output and overclockability. Getting a quad to 3.5ghz is almost impossible with super-expensive cooling, and there's not much sign of programs taking advantage of quad cores anyway. Dual core will be enough for the next few years.

After giving some thought to Extelleron's suggestion of buying a cheapo C2D proc and waiting for Penryn, I've decided against it and just going for the E6750 (unless he can convince me otherwise ).

As for the video situation, however, that's a different story... it's usually a bad idea to play the waiting game with video cards, and with the current prices on 8800GTSes, waiting for the next generation might not be that great of an idea. I agree that the 8800GTS's performance in DX10 is teh sux, but there's no guarantee that the 9800 series will perform much better, anyway. Besides, DX10 still hasn't matured, and so video cards (and game developers) still have a long way to go. At this point, since DX10 is not a viable option, I'll be getting an 8800GTS 320mb for about $270, then upgrading in about two years to play DX10 games. In any case, there's no way a video card can last four years, so an upgrade somewhere along the line is almost guaranteed to be necessary.

Post-quote:

Originally posted by: leegroves86
9800gts??? whoah, I like to think i'm fairly up to date on stuff and no where have i heard mention of Nvidia replacing their 8 series anytime soon... They are kicking AMD's butt right now so what motivation do they have to release teh 9 series less than a year after the 8 series???

the fact that the 8-series sucks at DX10 rendering?

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: ethugholla
Thank you very much for your input, it is very much appreciated.

I think I am going to go for the E4300 and then wait. The thing about the video card is that I am supposedly getting it for free from a friend. It happens to be a top of the line nVidia card. Part of the reason for building the computer was not only because of the great prices that Intel was putting out, but also because of this card. While it is true that not many video cards utilize DX10 very well, I plan on sticking with the video card.

What I am mainly concerned with is the price of Penryn, and the amount of cooling it requires. The reason that I am so skeptical and against quad-core is because I feel like it requires an immense investment in a top of the line cooling system. The computer that I have set up right now does not have a great cooling system, albeit it should be good enough for any dual-core system. I am hoping that Intel releases chips of all flavors for all prices.

My gameplan is kind of ironic in that I want to create a system that has a great longevity in terms of keeping up with the new generations, but also be restricted on a budget. I will most likely make the jump to quad-core when the time comes. Since I sort of need a computer now, do the parts in my current build look like they would be able to utilize quad-core?

The good thing about your build is, with the P35 motherboard, you'll be able to drop in a 45nm CPU (probably will require a BIOS update) when they come out. That gives you the flexibility to have an E4300 right now and a quad-core in the future.

Right now, on 65nm, Quad-cores do run pretty hot but it's not really a problem until you start overclocking. If you're going to overclock one of the current quads, you had better have a good cooling solution. It doesn't seem like from your posts you'll be overclocking, so this wouldn't really be a problem, anyway. When Intel moves to 45nm, like any move to a smaller process, power consumption and heat will be reduced considerably, and so will cost of manufacturing the CPUs... Penryn will also be slightly faster (~10%) per clock and be capable of higher clockspeeds, so there definately will be a speed boost.

Go with the E4300 now (or wait until July 22nd and pick up an E4400 for the same price the 4300 is now) as you said you are going to. If you're getting an 8800GTX (I'm not sure if its a 8800GTX or GTS you're talking about... you say GTX, but also you say 640MB... the GTX is 768MB, GTS is 640MB) for free, obviously go for that, it doesn't get better than free.

 

[bryanW1995]

well, his friend could have paid him to take that 8800 gtx off his hands b/c he thought that it was possessed...

I keep convincing myself to wait longer and longer for the upgrade, but the problem is that there is always going to be something over the horizon. Use your own best judgement on processors. I personally like to have something relatively new so I'll get a G0 stepping Q6600 now with a nice p35 mobo, then drop in a penryn when the price drops (probably after nehalem comes out). Based upon what I've read, the G0 stepping quads will also OC a lot better than the B3's.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Aflac
I'm in the exact same boat as the OP and I'm now considering what Extelleron posted, but I've still got some nagging thoughts...

The E6750 is right up there with the E6600 in terms of price/performance, and while multi-core may be the future, I believe that dual core will be enough for the next 3-5 years. I mean, it's been two years since the launch of dual core, and most games don't even take advantage of it yet. Why would quad-core be much different? Most consumers won't even have quad cores in 3-5 years.

Second, for $183, you can get an E6750 that has a decent chance of being overclocked to 4ghz, with the 8x multiplier and boosted FSB. A CPU that overclocks like this will probably have little problem lasting 3-5 years... and there's no guarantee that Penryn, which will be the first-generation 45nm part, will perform all that great. Right now, the performance boost isn't very high - from the Anandtech review of Penryn, Penryn is clocked about 10% faster than the Conroe processor, yet performs at most 18% faster (which isn't a lot, considering this is a new generation product).

Nothing's been said about Penryn heat performance or prices, but the TDP for Penryn is the same as the TDP for Conroe's G0 revision/stepping (both are 65W).

EDIT: oops, forgot about Quad. At this point, quad core CPUs lose to Dual-core CPUs, based on both heat output and overclockability. Getting a quad to 3.5ghz is almost impossible with super-expensive cooling, and there's not much sign of programs taking advantage of quad cores anyway. Dual core will be enough for the next few years.

After giving some thought to Extelleron's suggestion of buying a cheapo C2D proc and waiting for Penryn, I've decided against it and just going for the E6750 (unless he can convince me otherwise ).

As for the video situation, however, that's a different story... it's usually a bad idea to play the waiting game with video cards, and with the current prices on 8800GTSes, waiting for the next generation might not be that great of an idea. I agree that the 8800GTS's performance in DX10 is teh sux, but there's no guarantee that the 9800 series will perform much better, anyway. Besides, DX10 still hasn't matured, and so video cards (and game developers) still have a long way to go. At this point, since DX10 is not a viable option, I'll be getting an 8800GTS 320mb for about $270, then upgrading in about two years to play DX10 games. In any case, there's no way a video card can last four years, so an upgrade somewhere along the line is almost guaranteed to be necessary.

Post-quote:

Originally posted by: leegroves86
9800gts??? whoah, I like to think i'm fairly up to date on stuff and no where have i heard mention of Nvidia replacing their 8 series anytime soon... They are kicking AMD's butt right now so what motivation do they have to release teh 9 series less than a year after the 8 series???

the fact that the 8-series sucks at DX10 rendering?

Personally, I believe dual-core is going to get side-stepped in the multi-core era and those who went for dual-core for future-proofing are going to have been the losers of the multi-core transition.

It's true that not many games support more than one CPU core, but the days of that are pretty much over... a large number of games shipping now, and most of the games that will be coming out in the next year or so, will support at least two cores, and a lot will support 4. Over the last two years since dual-core came out, most (gamers, at least) who bought dual-core processors haven't got much use of of them. However, those who are buying quad-core processors now, for gaming, can already get some use of of them and will definately be using them soon. Supreme Commander, STALKER, and Rainbow Six Vegas (didn't know that till recently) currently support Quad-core CPUs. The two major game engines, CryEngine 2 and UE3, both support quad-core CPUs. Crysis, UT3, Alan Wake, and any games based on those engines (such as RB6:V, out now) will see benefits with a quad-core processor. The bottom line is, those who paid a lot of money for a dual-core processor and never utilized it until now got screwed, but those who are going for a quad-core now are going to get a good price (a year ago, an X2 3800+ was more expensive than a Q6600 will be July 22) and get to utilize the new processor right now.

I just don't see the reason for spending $183 for a E6750 when you can spend $113 and get an E4400 on July 22, or the same price now and get an E4300. An E4300 should overclock to around 3GHz... the E6750 might do something like 3.5GHz on air, unless you get lucky and snag an excellent chip. Going E4300/E4400 saves you $70, which is a nice investment toward a 45nm Quad.

The real reason that Penryn is worth waiting for isn't the speed bump. Taking into consideration higher clockspeeds, you might see a 15% increase in performance over a comparable 65nm CPU. That's pretty negligible, although of course extra performance is nice. The real reason to wait for 45nm is lower prices (45nm makes it cheaper for Intel to produce processors, and likely they will pass this on to the consumer to hurt AMD further), much less heat, and lower power consumption. Heat and power consumption are two of the big problems with current Quad-core processors, and Penryn will solve these.

When it comes to the video card, I can't tell you how an 8800GTS will perform in DirectX10 games... we still don't have good DX10 drivers or a well optimized DX10 game. But still, I really think we're going to need faster hardware to play advanced DX10 games well (depending on your resolution, of course.) I think we're going to see a pretty big leap from the 8800 to 9800, and probably some more optimization for DX10. You have to remember that G80 was designed for release in 2006, when DX9 was what mattered. Now, DX10 is important, and if G90 is going to succeed it needs good DX10 performance as well.

 

[ethugholla]

My mistake-- It is 768mb.

And actually, I was looking to OC, and should have said something about that. But if it will cause a problem when the time Penryn rolls around, I will probably not OC. If I do choose to OC, then I will purchase a necessary cooling solution.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
well, his friend could have paid him to take that 8800 gtx off his hands b/c he thought that it was possessed...

I keep convincing myself to wait longer and longer for the upgrade, but the problem is that there is always going to be something over the horizon. Use your own best judgement on processors. I personally like to have something relatively new so I'll get a G0 stepping Q6600 now with a nice p35 mobo, then drop in a penryn when the price drops (probably after nehalem comes out). Based upon what I've read, the G0 stepping quads will also OC a lot better than the B3's.

Sometimes it is worth it to wait, some times it is not. I think the perfect solution is to get a P35 motherboard (capable of using 45nm CPUs) and an E4300 for now, and then buying a Quad-core Penryn. That way you have something good enough for now and don't have to wait to have good performance... but you can upgrade later.

As you said, there's always something on the horizon. If Penryn doesn't come till Q1 2008 (I think it will "launch" late Q4 2007, but not really be available in significant quantities till Q1 2008) then we'll be saying that you're better off waiting till Nehalem, it's coming in H2 2008.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: ethugholla
My mistake-- It is 768mb.

And actually, I was looking to OC, and should have said something about that. But if it will cause a problem when the time Penryn rolls around, I will probably not OC. If I do choose to OC, then I will purchase a necessary cooling solution.

You don't really need an aftermarket cooler to overclock. An E4300 will do 2.6-2.8GHz no problem with the stock cooler. It's only when you raise the voltage that heat starts becoming a problem, and with C2D's it's usually only around 3GHz that you need to increase the voltage.

With 45nm, I think those chips are going to run pretty cool, and even a Quad-core may be fine to OC on a stock cooler. Look at AMD's move to 65nm... the 90nm Windsor's run pretty hot (at high speeds), but the Brisbanes can often reach 3GHz on stock cooling... they run very cool.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
well, his friend could have paid him to take that 8800 gtx off his hands b/c he thought that it was possessed...

I keep convincing myself to wait longer and longer for the upgrade, but the problem is that there is always going to be something over the horizon. Use your own best judgement on processors. I personally like to have something relatively new so I'll get a G0 stepping Q6600 now with a nice p35 mobo, then drop in a penryn when the price drops (probably after nehalem comes out). Based upon what I've read, the G0 stepping quads will also OC a lot better than the B3's.

Sometimes it is worth it to wait, some times it is not. I think the perfect solution is to get a P35 motherboard (capable of using 45nm CPUs) and an E4300 for now, and then buying a Quad-core Penryn. That way you have something good enough for now and don't have to wait to have good performance... but you can upgrade later.

As you said, there's always something on the horizon. If Penryn doesn't come till Q1 2008 (I think it will "launch" late Q4 2007, but not really be available in significant quantities till Q1 2008) then we'll be saying that you're better off waiting till Nehalem, it's coming in H2 2008.

nehalem is slated for q2 08 because the next gen stars line is supposed to be out in 45nm in q2 08 (cough cough COUGH). Sorry, I think that intel learned the hard way this time that amd is slightly optimistic with their release dates. nehalem won't hit until q1 09 at the earliest because intel won't NEED it until then to keep their performance advantage.
It's almost definitely smarter for me to get an e4300/e4400 now instead of a g0 stepping Q6600, but I can afford to wait a month or two and I can afford the extra $150 so I'll get the quad core. Also, I'm pretty sure that I'll still be able to get a decent resale on the quad core in 12-18mos so I will be able to make up a lot of that $150 loss then.