What would you do...

[acole1]

Current Specs:
X2 4400+ @ stock
4x512 PC3200
DFI LanParty Ultra-D
8800GTS 640

Option 1:
I have been looking at upgrading to the Q6600 and getting the P5Q-E and getting 4 or 8GB of some nice DDR2 ram within the next couple of months -- graduation present for self.
Price: $375 - $400

Option 2:
I also have the *possibility* of getting a free i7 of unknown model, then I would have to get a skt 1366 motherboard and some expensive DDR3 (6GB minimum).
Price: $450 - $550

Option 3:
Another option has dropped in my lap (until tomorrow) with Frys B&M selling the Q9550 + ECS junk for $230, which is $90 lower than NE's price. I would then junk the motherboard and get the P5Q-E and some decent DDR2 ram.
Price: $425 - $450


The question is, which option is best? I would like to OC to somewhere in the 3.0-3.4 range and get some decent performance out of the 775 options. The 1366 option is not so clear.

Thanks for you suggestions!

 

[JPB]

If you have a chance of getting a FREE Core i7...then that would be my choice. All you would need then is the memory and motherboard.

If you go the Quad 9550 route, like you said, sell the motherboard but instead of the ASUS, get the Gigabyte UD3P

 

[JPB]

WTF ? I just seen the ad, and a Quad 9550 + motherboard for $229 ?? :shocked:

 

[nyker96]

I think at this point if you building new and not upgrading and can take the price tag, go for i7, tech always moves forward, you'll be surprised at how fast those Q9xxx will age with a new product like i7 on the heels.

 

[jjmIII]

i7

 

[Dadofamunky]

Yeah, now that it's out i7's probably the way.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Ide go for the Frys deal, you really cant beat that.

 

[Martimus]

I really want that Q9550! I tried to buy one today from Micro Center, but they were out of stock. This would be $70 cheaper! Too bad I can't find it on the website, since there aren't any Fry's anywhere near me to go to the store for the deal.

 

[JMapleton]

i7 system, that system will be good for the next 5 years.

 

[TidusZ]

I honestly don't understand why anyone would go for i7 right now unless they want the best no matter the cost. It just makes a lot of sense to go for c2d or quad, especially if your gaming. the i7 processor is borderline overpriced, makes too much heat, and the ram/mobo are overpriced for what end up being pretty minimal performance gains - particularly in games and day to day tasks. If you want to spend tons of extra money on that, go ahead, but I can't recommend it. Unless you get it free like you were saying.

edit: to the guy above, if you can build me a pc that will be good in 4 years, and heck, good in 5 years, I'll actually not be very happy with you at all since you will have breeched the spacetime continuum and likely doomed all of us to a death that shouldn't of happened. Don't you even dare.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: JMapleton
i7 system, that system will be good for the next 5 years.

Yeah right. It could last until 2050.

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Originally posted by: JMapleton
i7 system, that system will be good for the next 5 years.

Nothing will be good for 5 years. It might be bad ass right now and tolerable 5 years from now, but it won't be good. Nothing is that future proof.

I say 9550. I won't jump on I7 until sometime early/middle of next year after prices have dropped and motherboards and processors have hopefully gone through a revision and stepping change respectively.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: JMapleton
i7 system, that system will be good for the next 5 years.

Nothing will be good for 5 years. It might be bad ass right now and tolerable 5 years from now, but it won't be good. Nothing is that future proof.

I say 9550. I won't jump on I7 until sometime early/middle of next year after prices have dropped and motherboards and processors have hopefully gone through a revision and stepping change respectively.

I agree. DDR2 memory prices are just insanely cheap.

I've been buying 16GB (4x4GB) DDR2-800 for ~185 shipped.

 

[s44]

Sell the free i7, get a 9550 system.

 

[acole1]

I really can't convince myself not to get the 9550 system. I figure, if I get the i7 then all I have to do is sell the 9550 for somewhere around what I got it for, or within the next 30 days just return it! Seems like a win-win to me!

 

[JMapleton]

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl
Nothing will be good for 5 years. It might be bad ass right now and tolerable 5 years from now, but it won't be good. Nothing is that future proof.

I still think as long as you update the video card once during those 5 years you'll be fine with that processor.

It all depends on how cpu heavy windows 7 will be.

 

[TidusZ]

in December 2003, five years ago, the latest and greatest were the athlon fx-51 and pentium 4 extreme 3.2ghz, both of which cost more than the i7 920 does now ($733 for the athlon vs ~300 for i7) which makes them more comparable with the 940 than the 920. Do you really think a 3.2ghz pentium 4 or 2.2 ghz athlon 64 is fine by todays computer enthusiast standards? You could get a processor twice as fast for the spare change in your couch - heck, I run an e4300 that was cheap when I bought it over a year ago and it would still destroy either of these two processors. To say that a processor is going to be fine for 5 years is ignorant.

 

[JMapleton]

TidusZ, I still play CS CZ so I guess my perspective is different. For gaming, no it will not be good enough 5 years from now for the latest and greatest games.

However for everyday use there should be no problem.

 

[cmdrdredd]

i7 is too new, DDR3 performance isn't all that big, and the mobos are overpriced. I say get the Q9550 and sit on it for a while. Later on the i7 will present itself as a great bargain and hopefully the mobo prices will come down to earth and memory performance improved somewhat. Not to mention all the warnings Intel puts out about voltage and that jazz. That bugs me to no end. No limits on overclocking but they say you'll fry your CPU if you try to use voltages on the memory that are what the memory manufacturer suggests for DDR3-1600 speeds.

I thought long and hard about it and I'm not going to go for i7 until next year...maybe fall. In the meantime I will keep my current system and swap out the CPU for a Q9550.

Look at the reviews and benchmarks. Notice where the i7 really stands out, 3D and video. If you don't do that then don't expect a miracle. It's not like the jump from the P4 to Core2, it's like a baby step for everyone but those who work with 3D and video editing all day.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: JMapleton
However for everyday use there should be no problem.

But the same could be said for a Pentium II today, couldn't it? For web browsing and e-mail, you don't need anything faster. I'd sure hate to be using one, though.

Originally posted by: Jcmdrdredd
Notice where the i7 really stands out, 3D and video. If you don't do that then don't expect a miracle. It's not like the jump from the P4 to Core2, it's like a baby step for everyone but those who work with 3D and video editing all day.

Just a clarification here, cmdrdredd is referring to 3D rendering, like what is needed to do CAD, not 3D gaming and the like.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: JMapleton
However for everyday use there should be no problem.

But the same could be said for a Pentium II today, couldn't it? For web browsing and e-mail, you don't need anything faster. I'd sure hate to be using one, though.

Originally posted by: Jcmdrdredd
Notice where the i7 really stands out, 3D and video. If you don't do that then don't expect a miracle. It's not like the jump from the P4 to Core2, it's like a baby step for everyone but those who work with 3D and video editing all day.

Just a clarification here, cmdrdredd is referring to 3D rendering, like what is needed to do CAD, not 3D gaming and the like.

Yes thank you for that clarification.

Gaming, the i7 is an improvement in most respects over the Core2/quad but it's not really a leap you might have expected at first. At least not for me. Like I said, I'll wait it out because a Q9550 can be overclocked to 3.4ghz+ quite easily and will provide plenty of power for your needs today. If you see yourself doing work with CAD and animation and/or video then the i7 is the better of the 2 options. Right now though the i7 is new, and not well understood in terms of what it can handle 24/7 as far as overclocking is concerned. It doesn't seem to be the simple "clock your FSB to 400Mhz and you'll be sitting on a 1Ghz+ overclock" the Core 2 was at release. Overclocking is where I'm at. You can buy a reasonably priced CPU and make it as fast/faster than the $1k option.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
It doesn't seem to be the simple "clock your FSB to 400Mhz and you'll be sitting on a 1Ghz+ overclock" the Core 2 was at release. Overclocking is where I'm at. You can buy a reasonably priced CPU and make it as fast/faster than the $1k option.

its funny how people keep saying this yet they dont look at the upper scale.

a 1000 dollar chip that can overclock well, will be near priceless. Ive seen 1800-2000 dollar QX chips that could hit 4.2ghz on stock voltage.

Compare that with a cherry Q6600 which would run at most 500-600..

Theres a much higher gamble / return on the 1000 dollar chip.

So, one shouldnt ever use "faster" in the sentence when comparing to a higher class chip, unless your chip is a cherry.


If your piecing out new systems, it makes no sense not to get a i7 system unless your really strapped on budget.

If it fits in your budget, always get the newer tech. <--- Golden rule in computer shopping.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
It doesn't seem to be the simple "clock your FSB to 400Mhz and you'll be sitting on a 1Ghz+ overclock" the Core 2 was at release. Overclocking is where I'm at. You can buy a reasonably priced CPU and make it as fast/faster than the $1k option.

its funny how people keep saying this yet they dont look at the upper scale.

a 1000 dollar chip that can overclock well, will be near priceless. Ive seen 1800-2000 dollar QX chips that could hit 4.2ghz on stock voltage.

Compare that with a cherry Q6600 which would run at most 500-600..

Theres a much higher gamble / return on the 1000 dollar chip.

So, one shouldnt ever use "faster" in the sentence when comparing to a higher class chip, unless your chip is a cherry.


If your piecing out new systems, it makes no sense not to get a i7 system unless your really strapped on budget.

If it fits in your budget, always get the newer tech. <--- Golden rule in computer shopping.

They should when you think about buying a 3Ghz CPU for $1099.99 and you can clock a $300 Q9550 to 4Ghz with the right stuff. Not to mention that $700 allows you room for a nice video card setup and lots of memory with motherboard.

Also about new systems and i7 being a default. Again, it depends on the usage. I mean, I can't see forking over almost $400 for a mobo and $300 for memory unless I'm getting the ridiculous performance boost over the Core2/quad CPUs. I'm sorry, but I can't justify it any way. Especially when the CPU is so new. Like I said, I don't see many reports of what is 24/7 stable on the i7 920 as far as voltage and overclock. I see a few people with money to burn doing LN2 stuff. Plus, try finding an U-120 bracket for the new socket, it's tough.

I'm simply saying that every option should be evaluated. Don't jump in on something new because it's new.

 

[TidusZ]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
It doesn't seem to be the simple "clock your FSB to 400Mhz and you'll be sitting on a 1Ghz+ overclock" the Core 2 was at release. Overclocking is where I'm at. You can buy a reasonably priced CPU and make it as fast/faster than the $1k option.

its funny how people keep saying this yet they dont look at the upper scale.

a 1000 dollar chip that can overclock well, will be near priceless. Ive seen 1800-2000 dollar QX chips that could hit 4.2ghz on stock voltage.

Compare that with a cherry Q6600 which would run at most 500-600..

Theres a much higher gamble / return on the 1000 dollar chip.

So, one shouldnt ever use "faster" in the sentence when comparing to a higher class chip, unless your chip is a cherry.


If your piecing out new systems, it makes no sense not to get a i7 system unless your really strapped on budget.

If it fits in your budget, always get the newer tech. <--- Golden rule in computer shopping.

They should when you think about buying a 3Ghz CPU for $1099.99 and you can clock a $300 Q9550 to 4Ghz with the right stuff. Not to mention that $700 allows you room for a nice video card setup and lots of memory with motherboard.

Also about new systems and i7 being a default. Again, it depends on the usage. I mean, I can't see forking over almost $400 for a mobo and $300 for memory unless I'm getting the ridiculous performance boost over the Core2/quad CPUs. I'm sorry, but I can't justify it any way. Especially when the CPU is so new. Like I said, I don't see many reports of what is 24/7 stable on the i7 920 as far as voltage and overclock. I see a few people with money to burn doing LN2 stuff. Plus, try finding an U-120 bracket for the new socket, it's tough.

I'm simply saying that every option should be evaluated. Don't jump in on something new because it's new.

Vouch

 

[JMapleton]

Originally posted by: myocardia
But the same could be said for a Pentium II today, couldn't it? For web browsing and e-mail, you don't need anything faster. I'd sure hate to be using one, though.

That's like 10 years ago. But my 3 year old Prescott is blazing fast and does everything I need it to that's internet related.

But I doubt that could be said for a PII as with the advent/popularization of flash based website advertising banners in/around 2001/2002 it made everything sub 256MB and less than 1.5Ghz obsolete and molasses slow on the internet. Ever tried to surf the web with a computer with 128MB? Like pulling teeth.