Just want some feedback. Considering upgrading to OC, but don't know if I should just hold out until i7/mobo/DDR3 prices drop. Thanks in advance
Printable View
Just want some feedback. Considering upgrading to OC, but don't know if I should just hold out until i7/mobo/DDR3 prices drop. Thanks in advance
You're chugging along with an E6300. Hold onto it, IMO. It'll take some time, but i7 and later i5 will demolish E8500. Why spend $200 on a new chip? :shrug:
That was kinda what I was thinking, but will all this new stuff coming out, it's hard to just sit back. I just started getting into this stuff.
If you have the money to spend, go ahead and get the E8500 or E8600. A 4.5 ghz overclocked E8600 is what, almost a 50% increase(!) in clockspeed over your existing chip. Of course you can gain more in quad supported games with a Q9650, and then just sit on that until the die shrink for core i7 and be fine for awhile, especially if you reach 4+ ghz on it.
These processors are still amazingly fast. Since when did these chips suddenly become "super slow" the instant a core i7 hits the market? Did a highly overclocked E8600 or a q9650 suddenly slow down? You don't need to upgrade every generation, unless there's a real reason to upgrade. (like going from a 512mb video card to a 1gb video card if you're running out of vram, whereas otherwise the 512mb card would be fast enough if you werent).
If you choose an e8600 or q9650, those two cpu's are STILL just fine for anything on the market. It's not like something is going to come out in the immediate future that is going to make you think "omg i need to upgrade....".
Is it really important that a core i7 gets 141 FPS with SLI with a fully MT'd game, while a Q9650 gets 100 fps?
Grab one of those cpu's, and WAIT. Just jump to i7 after the die shrink. By the time the die shrink comes out, DDR3 RAM *AND* motherboards will have dropped in price so much that the price drop will have *PAID* for that CPU you upgraded to, and then you can have a nice range of chips to decide from...an 32nm chip or a cheaper 45nm corei7 or speed ramped chips.
Sure you can jump ship right now, but remember you're going to pay for it. You can get decent 4 GB of ddr2 for $70 or even less, while 6 gb of ddr3 for triple channel is how much? $250+?
It's also worth sitting back and seeing if these new 1.65v requiring DDR3 will damage the cpu's, which are supposedly far outside of Intel's specifications. The memory controller is on the CPU, not the motherboard...I wonder what's going to happen here....if the CPU seriously degrades from these volts, who will take the blame? Will Intel warrant the chips? Will the memory manufacturers take the blame? Will the user be blamed for running the voltage so far beyond specs?
Basically, unless you're a bencher or a hardcore enthuiast, just get the Q9650/E8600 and *game* with it and just upgrade the video card for awhile. You'll do just fine.
Don't look at GTA4 as an 'excuse' to upgrade to core i7. That port was one of the most unoptimized games ever (and we're not getting to the bugs that made STEAM start accepting refunds on this game). Since when has a game REQUIERD you getting the latest and greatest cpu JUST to get PLAYABLE framerates out of it? Not even the original Unreal did that! You were just fine with a Voodoo2 and a MMX chip...and this was during a time when 60 FPS was considered the holy grail, and as long as you got 30+fps, you were doing great.
The last game that ran like crap on unreleaesd/brand new hardware (Core i7 had been out LESS than a month when GTA4 got released) was Pacific Strike. And we all know how badly that game did. Even people with the most powerful pentiums on the planet didn't get good performance in it....
I agree with what Falkentyne said, I have no problem with running an E8600 @ 4400MHz for the time being. An 8600 is reasonably priced now, and would be a good upgrade for your current system. The cost of going to a full-out i7 system is quite high, and there is still a lot of life left in the last-gen builds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Falkentyne
As for the pc version of GTA IV, it's very badly-ported from the X-Box and Microsoft/Rockstar have gone too far with their DRM Saferom crap this time.
Falkentyne, thanks for the nice details response. I am not at all interested in the GTA IV game, it seemed way too over-hyped. I guess moreso, i would be worried if I got a core 2 duo and more multi-threaded games come out, and need to upgrade within a year. I'm hoping to get enough tax return to pay for some upgrades, probably not enough for an I7 build unfortunately. I want to make sure that it is money well spent.
Very well put Falkentyne!!
I've been contemplating swapping my Q66 out for a E8500/E8600, but thought I should keep that cash for an eventual i7. But that summary makes me think twice.
you have an e6300
i went from an e6850 @4.0 to an e8600 @ 4.6 and the difference is big
save yourself some $$ n get an e8500 i'm sure it can do 4.4 easy if you get a nice chip you be @ 4.5+
E8400/E8500/E8600 clocked up to 500x8(9) can keep up with gaming during the whole 2009. You have already 4GB RAM.
I'm considering sticking with my E6600 until 2010.
You're welcome.
What makes people want to upgrade so quickly is usually envy, not need.
But when you're busy enjoying your games, then you dont think so much about upgrading anymore. One other poster cut right to the chase:
"get your E8x00 (or Q9650 i forgot what he said), and stop reading XS for awhile and just game".
Reading XS is really bad for your willpower...
It's great when you want to learn how to overclock your existing system (this and ocforums, and some others are great sites), but the minute new hardware comes out, the hardcore enthuiasts jump ship right away (and they can afford to do it...)
Whatever you do, don't listen to the "quad core supremacists" because they will argue that buying a dual core is stupid. Falkentyne, you make some very strong points and you make them clear and concise. :up: I wish you had contributed when I was being destroyed by the pro-quad flamers (one of whom is now banned, unsurprisingly). :ROTF:
well also think about skipping a CPU upgrade and go with a GPU upgrade... the problem with upgrading is that most often the next big thing is 6 to 8 months out and there will be a price jump. and also ANY decision is gambling assuming falling prices and the such. Im stuck there too... do i upgrade the ram and cpu or gpu. And if i upgrade the GPU will i even see it on my 22" monitor or should i really just upgrade the monitor so that the next VC i get will actually show the improvements? but monitor prices are falling too so should i wait on the monitor first? maybe i should just wait till my cpu bites the dust then upgrade? upgrading is always hard and now its really hard. I like to try to upgrade one component every year so that i never have to make a huge jump, but right now with the I7 it makes things tough, even the ram moving from dual channel to tri since the ram wont transfer as well...
Lenny I was reading that post the other day.. lol. That was probably the lowest I have ever seen members go on this site. I'm glad action was taken, because the civility of most of the threads is what makes this site so valuable.
So my Microcenter has an E8400 for pretty cheap, and I'm just wondering, how do you know if your overclock is memory related or processor when the system crashes? If I end up wanting to get the 8400 to 4Ghz and my memory is the issue, i will need to update that as well. I seem to have issues when I get around my current 442 FSB, are timings in need of change or have I just hit my processor limit. There is no BSOD (although I have memory dump off because I was trying to do some formatting) an I have crashed once or twice in games today.
run memtestQuote:
Originally Posted by Volcanicstrad37
Yep memory is solid. I guessing I just hit my limit on my processor.
Back on track to the orriginal topic. Is it common to get an E8400 to 4Ghz I see a lot of people with some great number on them, but is that normal for these processors?
I just went from an oc'd q6600 to a intel i7 920 @ 3.8ghz. World of difference. Also, look up multi gpu testing on core i7's versus E8500's, it's a joke. The core i7 is crazy if you have a cpu bottlenecked system (rather than a gpu bottlenecked one). Right now, most games are gpu bottlenecked for any cpu won't make a massive difference.
Check this out.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i...rmance-review/
So if you feel you will have SLI or crossfire in the future, wait for i7. That's what made me pull the trigger on i7.
Yes, It is :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcanicstrad37
you have 60 seconds before your e8500 self destructs and becomes obsolete.
I only upgraded to i7 basically for the long haul. I am sure it will go through a die shrink and a few revisions of the CPUs and from where its at now to where its going to be will be awesome i bet. But to each his own. PLus i like shiny new hardware!!!!!
Well with a 40% drop in price for the Q9650 its time to trade in my E6750. :D The wife was just remarking at "How Slow" her PC was last night. A couple of cheap sticks of RAM and an ASrock MB and I can build her a new PC cheap!:up:
Use my old E6750 for the wife and the Q9650 for me! Now thats what I call Recycling to save the earth. ;)
i am still on an E2180 :rofl: and 2gb OCZ rams :rofl: kinda glad most games nowadays are single threaded :D
Here is something said by intel. Source from Fudzilla
Dual-core still a better choice
Quad-cores are just getting cheaper and many still think that four is unconditionally better than two. Well, if you talk about girls, we have to agree; but if you talk about four cores versus two cores, there are excessively many downsides to quad.
Quad-cores do have four cores, but there are only a few applications that can put all four to good use and you have much higher TDP and heat you have to disperse with an expensive cooler. The cheapest Core 2 Quad 8200 sells for around €150 and you can get 2.33GHz four cores.
If you are into overclocking, 2.33GHz Q8200 can easily become over 3GHz clocked quad-core, at least we believe it should be possible to dramatically overclock this CPU. At the same time, the same money can buy you 3.0 to 3.16GHz Core 2 Duo E8400 or even E8500. The later will cost some €10 more, but you will get 3.16GHz clocked CPU for about €162, or 3GHz Core 2 Duo 8400 for ten less, €140.
Most of the time 3GHz Core 2 duo will outperform Quad-core 2.33GHz CPU and if you are not into overclocking 2.33GHz is waste of your money, unless you are rendering or decoding massively, which very few do. Even in the eve of 2009, for most, dual-core is a wiser choice and Intel, not AMD, has planned that it will be this way.
And heres another taken from fudzilla
Intel's own words
We finally got an answer on what exactly Intel tells its business customers when it wants to put some contrast between dual and quad-core CPUs.
Intel claims that dual-core is best for:
1. Maximizing productivity for multi-tasking business users
2. IT builds with numerous background applications
3. Demanding office applications and collaboration software
The same paper tells the business customers that quad-core is best for:
1. CAD design and 3D rendering for advanced business applications
2. Complex calculations such as Monte Carlo and Black-Scholes
3. HD Video Encoding for business video authoring
In Office productivity Sysmark 2007 test, dual-core is actually some 15 percent faster than the Quad-core and Intel is comparing E8600 at 3.33GHz and Q9400 at 2.67GHz, both priced at around €220 price tag. In Complex calculation Excel 2007, Monte Carlo Simulation this same quad-core can end up 21 percent faster than the dual-core.
Intel left out 3D gaming from this equation simply as it tries to sell the PCs to business customers who should not be playing Call of Duty at work hours, but at the same time tells most of you that you might not need a Quad-core.
The Dual core is what most of us need :)
Yes it's common for E8400+'s to EXCEED 4 ghz with the newer steppings. Original stepping was C0, which I think was for both the QX and the E series, and most could hit 4 ghz with good air, at or below 1.4v.
The newer steppings can do this on less vcore, and some even get to 4.5 ghz on air.
Quads can POTENTIALLY overclock just as far with the same steppings (Q9650=E8400 base speed), but motherboards have a harder time clocking quads than duals at high FSB (QX extreme editions avoid that but theyre still on older steppings), and with 4 cores, you have a bigger chance to get a bum one.
Well, I broke down and bought an e8400 from microcenter. Doing my part to support the economy. :). Anyway I am just starting to tinker with it and got up to 3.7ghz on stock 1.25v. I'm hoping I can get this to 4ghz!
Pentium 4's can still game. Your E6300 will be happy for many years to come :)
Until the first game that you really, really, really want to play fully supports quad-core processors and you see benchmarks. Especially i7 benchmarks. :)
How long can we expect an E8500 to keep up with gaming?Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcanicstrad37
I think the question should be rephrased to: How long can we expect gaming keep up with an E8500?
the fact is .. not much games utilize 2 core or multi-core, unfortunately, the CPU chip technology shoot up too high, that the programmers are unable to catch up with them
until now, regardless having rich programmers, poor programmers, amateur programmers or skilled programmers, most application produced still could not fully utilize the CPU advantages.