Who's struggling to justify upgrading their CPU?

[Deanodarlo]

I've been stuck with an overclocked Q9450 and 4GB ram for what seems like forever, but I just can't find a reason to upgrade. 775 and Core2 has been such a great platform, great overclocking headroom; I think I've been running it longer than any past combo.

All these new CPU's offer great numbers, but I doubt I'd notice much difference running Win7 given all the hassle of upgrading and re-installing. I don't encode very often, I play games occasionally on my ATI 6850, I do a lot of general work and run retro-emulators.

I remember when a new CPU release meant you could do new things on your PC. You really felt the difference! Now it's more "when I can be arsed because my rig is getting on a bit."

Anyone in the same boat?

 

[Campy]

Yes, i feel like i'm in the same boat. I'm a gamer and my current rig satisfies all my needs. However, if i could find a cheapo quad core to slot into my mobo i'd definitely jump on that.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Yes. Instead of upgrading to SB, I purchased two Q9300s for my existing 775 rigs, installed and overclocked to 3.0Ghz. Should be enough for me for the next few years.

I used to go upgrade-crazy, but now I plan on saving money. My PC is truly "good enough" right now.

It was a nice upgrade from the overclocked E2140s that I had in there though.

Oh yes, I maxed out the RAM to 8GB in both too, up from 4GB. I figured that as long as I was planning on keeping the machines, and since I was running Win7 64-bit, I might as well.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

I had a c2 quad and upgraded to i7 and would do it again if I had to do it all over again. You really can't tell the difference in just general usage but it's nice having hyperthreading, turbo boost, and I don't have to have my CPU oc'ed like crazy for it to be powerful. If you run any CPU intensive apps you'll really see the i7 distance itself from c2. I'm not talking a small difference either. If you have a Q9450 at around 3.8 or higher then I say just stick with it till it dies on you or until i7 or SB just becomes ridiculously cheap.

And to the guy running the c2 dual core it's time to upgrade. C2 dual is so ridiculously underpowered it's not even funny. You will notice the speed difference in all areas including gaming. I get 50% CPU usage while running GTA 4 on my i7 @ 3.45ghz. I couldn't imagine running a dinosaur dual core and it being anything but a frustrating experience.

 

[Deanodarlo]

Always good to hear both sides OILFIELDTRASH. I guess it depends on how much you lean on your CPU in day to day tasks on your PC. Someone like yourself sounds like a power user, can't have a fast enough CPU - plus you play quad core games. Many people if they game, use consoles these days primarily.

As you said, I'll get around to updating when I feel the need. Consoles seem to be holding back the PC game department, very few titles pushing the boat out and the ones that are look pretty much more of the same, CPU's have done most general user tasks well for a long time now and GPU's are helping with video payback.

In my case as a kid I remember the jump from a 486 to a Pentium was huge in terms of making new tasks possible, the same with every CPU release up to around 1Ghz. I could play and rip MP3's, encode and play full screen DVD's, emulate all my fav retro computers and consoles. Each CPU allowed me to experience new and better things.

1Ghz-2.5Ghz (or 1.5-3.2Ghz for P4) helped with PC gaming, perhaps encoding if you were into heavily into that (I was bored of it by then - just bought original DVD's as they weren't expensive), but not much else and each upgrade was less exciting.

The next big jump was dual core 775. I must admit, that felt cool, multitasking much smoother.

After that, I have kind of slowed down on CPU/motherboard upgrades these days. I went Quad as it was the top CPU my motherboard could run, but I do all modern gaming on the PS3. Threw in an ATI 6850 as it's a low power GPU (probably crossfire it in the future) and I like buying older PC games from ebay on the cheap or original budget/gold/GOTY/STEAM range (again, on the PC I'm more of a retrogamer) - it runs them super smooth at 1080p. Also this CPU just handles everything I throw at it.

I know I will upgrade, I love technology, just finding it hard to justify it! It's all the modern consoles fault I tell you, and the mobile computing/laptop/tablet/netbook craze! I don't have the enthusiasm for my desktop PC I used to have.

 

[IGemini]

Even if I had the necessary capital to build a new machine, I'm also not seeing much point in upgrading at this point. And I do a lot of the same things. Even Crysis at 1920x1200 is playable and it can handle any other game thrown at it.

Part of it was also having pretty good hardware. My overclock is stable at a voltage that's actually lower than stock VID (1.225v) and I know it can handle 4GHz stable. Still runs cool as a cucumber at 45C even though it's been loaded completely with crunching since last night. I figure I'll get an SSD and maybe a video card upgrade in before I can justify a completely new machine, which may not happen until Ivy Bridge at least.

 

[nsdjoe]

I'm strongly considering upgrading to the re-released Sandy Bridge from my Q6600 @ 3.2. Before I upgraded my video card to a 6870 I thought I had no reason to upgrade any time soon. But, now my rig is substantially CPU bottle-necked while playing Bad Company 2. On full 32-player servers I get almost no difference in fps while changing from minimum to maximum settings - the CPU is pegged no matter what, probably tracking all the physics and player actions. On 16 player maps I get another 10-15fps, further substantiating my assumption that I'm CPU bottle-necked.

With all that said, BC2 is the only game I've noticed this phenomenon and may just be particularly CPU intensive. I plan on switching to some of the new RPGs coming out this year, at least until Battlefield 3 is released so perhaps I'll be able to wait on an upgrade after all.

 

[Smartazz]

I've got a Q6600@3.3GHz and I'm planning not to upgrade it until Battlefield 3 comes out. I considered getting an i5 2500k setup, but I spent the money on an SSD and monitor and I'm thankful I did.

 

[tweakboy]

When you see your CPU meter say 100 percent not including video rendering then you justify buying new CPU. Other then that your not gonna see a difference either.

Games take up 60 percent avg CPU quad .. apps like my DAW Sonar X1 , when it renders it goes to 70 percent , huge projects only put 20 or 30 percent load. Soo ya I will have this rig for many more years. 2017. thx

 

[ViviTheMage]

I agree, I was on my Q9550 forever it seemed like!

I went and got i5 2500k...felt 'weird' being almost 2 generations behind (first gen i series, and now second gen i series!

I just had an upgrade bug .. that cost me $1500, LOL. Not including what I sold my old stuff for.

 

[Smartazz]

When you see your CPU meter say 100 percent not including video rendering then you justify buying new CPU. Other then that your not gonna see a difference either.

Games take up 60 percent avg CPU quad .. apps like my DAW Sonar X1 , when it renders it goes to 70 percent , huge projects only put 20 or 30 percent load. Soo ya I will have this rig for many more years. 2017. thx

Tweakboy, I think people have explained this a lot. Games don't always peg four cores and very often IPC is what matters. While I personally don't plan to upgrade my CPU just yet, I'm hesitant to upgrade my GPU because of my CPU. I'm also happy with my GTX260 C216, so I see no need to upgrade at the moment.

 

[tweakboy]

Tweakboy, I think people have explained this a lot. Games don't always peg four cores and very often IPC is what matters. While I personally don't plan to upgrade my CPU just yet, I'm hesitant to upgrade my GPU because of my CPU. I'm also happy with my GTX260 C216, so I see no need to upgrade at the moment.

Yes I agree!

 

[tweakboy]

I agree, I was on my Q9550 forever it seemed like!

I went and got i5 2500k...felt 'weird' being almost 2 generations behind (first gen i series, and now second gen i series!

I just had an upgrade bug .. that cost me $1500, LOL. Not including what I sold my old stuff for.

Wow thats a lot for a system. you can buy gold apparel with that kind of money lol

 

[deimos3428]

There aren't any good upgrade options from a Phenom II 955 at the moment. Would love to have a 2500K but the performance delta isn't quite enough to warrant ~$300 for a new mobo + CPU, so I'm holding out for the next generation for now.

 

[Wreckage]

My Q9550 seems fine. I'm glad I did not jump on SB and have to RMA my system. I do have an i7 motherboard, that I may just sell. I should be able to last at least another year or two I think.

 

[bigbillybear]

I agree, I was on my Q9550 forever it seemed like!

I went and got i5 2500k...felt 'weird' being almost 2 generations behind (first gen i series, and now second gen i series!

I just had an upgrade bug .. that cost me $1500, LOL. Not including what I sold my old stuff for.

Bro,

You and me both lol... I just purchased the last few pieces of my computer and am getting them in today after a delay from newegg =( ... Its a large jump for me as well having bought a C2D when the first came out 6600 @2.4 ghz, 2gig Ram, 240 gig HD lol full, 9800GT, windows 7 just installed 32 bit... my new system is i5 2500k, Intel Mobo DP67DE, 8 gig Ram, 1tb HD SATA 6gbs, GTX460 gigabyte vid card, Windows 7 64 bit etc... I think when I get it together later tonight I will be happy with the difference... By the way I only need 2 SATA ports and those are the 2 SATA 3's on the board... Also got me a new 24" Asus LCD monitor, and Sony speakers... Im excited to say the least...

BBB

 

[loafbred]

I'm living partially on retirement funds, so desire to upgrade is low. I'm still happy with my Q9550 @ 3.6, and recently added a $200 HD 5870 to crossfire with the old HD 5850. I game at 1920x1200 and 1600x1200, and it never disappoints. I have 4gb PNY XLR8 PC2 8500 which runs at 424 MHz with 4-4-4-12 timings at 2.0v.

Admittedly, I haven't tried anything newer, so I don't really know what I might be missing.

 

[Rifter]

dont talk to me about upgrading, in the last 3 years i have gone from

AMD 7750@3.0Ghz / ATI 4830 --> Phenom II 940@3.6Ghz / ATI 4890@1Ghz --> Current system in sig, i7 930@4.2Ghz / GTX 460@860Mhz SLI

That said i noticed an improvement with each upgrade. And now im awaiting the second gen/stepping LGA 2011 chips before i think about upgrading. Will also consider the second gen of BD if it does well. But basically for the next 2 years im good and dont give a damn what comes out or gets recalled

 

[aigomorla]

ME!

im struggling..

Do i give back the 990X to get something new (cant say) or do i wait.. for LGA2011.

ahhhh hard choices...

WOT i got 11,111 post count on this thread.

 

[Wuzup101]

I'm in the same boat and I'm still using a q6600 lol. Honestly, I play games, but not the newest ones anymore on PC (I find myself on the 360 more and more). The last game I picked up was starcraft II (awesome) and that easily plays on my system lol. I plan to upgrade when Ivy comes out (making the jump straight from 65nm to 22nm lol).

If I did a lot of heavy photo / video editing or encoding I probably would have went i7 when they came out. That being said, like many of us I suspect, I'm still waiting for software developers to catch up with multicore processors. It's not that a new sandy wouldn't be a decent upgrade for me... it's just that the old system doesn't feel slow yet. I used to upgrade more frequently, and the old system always felt slow lol... this one does not! I guess it didn't hurt that the original i7 platform was so damn expensive when it came out. The motherboards were pretty high (relatively) and DDR3 was still very expensive (again relatively).

 

[wuliheron]

I've got a phenom II 940 and see no immediate reason to upgrade. It will be many years before games require more then 4 cores and a faster cpu and I'm not interested in minor improvements. If you can hold out, 8 cores is ideal for running physics and AI and I'm really curious to see how bulldozer and ivy bridge perform in that department.

 

[wanderer27]

I've been thinking about it lately, but I'm still not sure if I'm going to move on anything yet.

As you can see, my System's got some miles on it, but the only thing that really stresses it is DW.

Now with DW I'm not certain what the bottleneck is. From what it sounds like it may be a Memory bottleneck, though I guess CPU might factor in a bit as well - it's (DW) an odd one to be sure.


It looks like my next upgrade is going to have to include W7x64 and a gob of RAM.
I really hate having to look at W7, but I don't think XPx64 ever really got the support it needed.

Sandy Bridge, Bull Dozer, and Ivy Bridge are all options at this point.

I may even wait until ES V - Skyrim comes out to see that's any good and how big a resource hog it ends up being.



.

 

[Patrick Wolf]

Me. Don't need the 2500K (yet), but would like it cause it runs so cool. Same with the 560 Ti...

 

[nyker96]

I used to upgrade the CPU like every 1.5 years like clockwork, but now I feel my x4 620@3.25 is just overkill for my daily web browsing needs. Dumping 400-500 for a new mb+ram+cpu upgrade is just pointless. I do play game but mostly older stuff like tf2. For me I think the value proposition for cpu upgrade is just not there. I'm saving this year's cpu cash into buying a Kindle, a new aquarium pump, maybe a new SSD. All of which are far more useful to me right now.

 

[tomoyo]

No struggle for me, I want to make a nearly silent system with a quad core. Currently on a core 2 duo at 3.0ghz. I'll wait until bulldozer comes out to compare against SB.