Advice wanted on cpu upgrade
in [Asus]
|
Prev: Recomended 1156 processor?
Next: ASUS K8V SE Deluxe motherboard can't boot up Windows 7 PE from USB flash drives?
From: EGK on 13 Mar 2010 17:15 I have a system build on an Asus P5b motherboard. It currently has a E6750, Intel Core2 duo cpu at 2.66GHz with 8GB of DDR2 (PC2-6400) memory installed. Bios version is 2104. Would anyone recommend a cpu upgrade for this system or would I see much difference at all? I'm a casual gamer and sometimes do video work. I was thinking of upgrading to a quad core cpu but I'm not sure if it's worth it or not.
From: Paul on 14 Mar 2010 04:32 EGK wrote: > I have a system build on an Asus P5b motherboard. It currently has a E6750, > Intel Core2 duo cpu at 2.66GHz with 8GB of DDR2 (PC2-6400) memory > installed. Bios version is 2104. > > Would anyone recommend a cpu upgrade for this system or would I see much > difference at all? I'm a casual gamer and sometimes do video work. I was > thinking of upgrading to a quad core cpu but I'm not sure if it's worth it > or not. A Q9550 2.83Ghz quad at $260, is probably the most cost effective upgrade. The quad may help with the video render to output, and make it a bit faster. Microsoft Flight Simulator FSX can use the quad cores, and launches some threads on the fly. A lot of other games have a "dominant" thread running at 100% on one core, while the other cores may share a lower level of load. So you won't necessarily see uniform loading with games. The purpose of selecting a slight higher frequency (2.83 vs 2.66) is so you see some tiny increase on single threaded code. Overclocking is another option, and for either of your processor choices (your current one or an upgrade), can give a bit more performance. Whether that is feasible or not, really depends on how much room there is to speed up the FSB on your motherboard. Also, I think your Vcore is three phase, and that may get a bit warm if you overclock. In terms of fast dual cores, there is rumor of an E8700 at 3.5GHz coming out. One of the overclocking sites, has benchmark results from about five people. So they could be leaking out somewhere in the world. But the ratio of 3.5Ghz to 2.66Ghz is only a 30% boost, and that processor could well be more expensive than the Q9550 when it eventually shows up. (Overclocked E8700 can do 5GHz on air cooling, but these guys use too much voltage) http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_2_e8700_3.5ghz Whether the Q9550 is a worthwhile upgrade, may depend on what percentage of the time you're working on video. And whether the video tool actually uses all four cores. Software makers don't always make it easy to determine how the hardware will respond. In terms of quad cores here, I dual boot WinXP and Win2K, and I don't think Win2K supports the quad (likely that only two cores would report). So you'd want WinXP or later, for the quad as an upgrade. Paul
From: EGK on 14 Mar 2010 11:27
Thanks a lot for the rundown, Paul I was looking at that processor on newegg.com $260 seemed kind of pricy for that little clock boost but the quad core sounded more promising. I just wasn't sure if I would notice much difference. $260 is pricey when you consider the whole system cost a grand a couple of years ago. They also had the Q9400 for $190. That runs at the same clock speed of 2.66 but had the quad core. It also has 6mb of L2 cache while the 9550 has 12. So I can kind of see why you're saying the 9550 may be the most cost effective at just $70 more. I'd like to find a 9550S which reduces the heat output of the processor a lot but haven't found those for sale in the usual places. Thanks again. Things to think about. On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 04:32:45 -0400, Paul <nospam(a)needed.com> wrote: >EGK wrote: >> Would anyone recommend a cpu upgrade for this system or would I see much >> difference at all? I'm a casual gamer and sometimes do video work. I was >> thinking of upgrading to a quad core cpu but I'm not sure if it's worth it >> or not. > >A Q9550 2.83Ghz quad at $260, is probably the most cost effective upgrade. > >The quad may help with the video render to output, and make it a bit faster. > >Microsoft Flight Simulator FSX can use the quad cores, and launches some >threads on the fly. A lot of other games have a "dominant" thread running >at 100% on one core, while the other cores may share a lower level of >load. So you won't necessarily see uniform loading with games. > >The purpose of selecting a slight higher frequency (2.83 vs 2.66) is >so you see some tiny increase on single threaded code. > >Overclocking is another option, and for either of your processor >choices (your current one or an upgrade), can give a bit more >performance. Whether that is feasible or not, really depends on >how much room there is to speed up the FSB on your motherboard. >Also, I think your Vcore is three phase, and that may get a bit >warm if you overclock. > >In terms of fast dual cores, there is rumor of an E8700 at 3.5GHz >coming out. One of the overclocking sites, has benchmark results >from about five people. So they could be leaking out somewhere >in the world. But the ratio of 3.5Ghz to 2.66Ghz is only a 30% >boost, and that processor could well be more expensive than >the Q9550 when it eventually shows up. > >(Overclocked E8700 can do 5GHz on air cooling, but these guys use too much voltage) >http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_2_e8700_3.5ghz > >Whether the Q9550 is a worthwhile upgrade, may depend on what percentage >of the time you're working on video. And whether the video tool actually >uses all four cores. Software makers don't always make it easy to determine >how the hardware will respond. > >In terms of quad cores here, I dual boot WinXP and Win2K, and I don't think >Win2K supports the quad (likely that only two cores would report). So you'd >want WinXP or later, for the quad as an upgrade. > > Paul |