PDA

View Full Version : Core 2 Quads vs new architecture



XhKizits
02-24-2010, 01:49 AM
According to this article Intel 'Lynnfield' Core i5 750 and Core i7 870 Performance Testing What's New? :: TweakTown (http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/2909/intel_lynnfield_core_i5_750_and_core_i7_870_perfor mance_testing/index2.html)
comparing the core i5 750 and the q9400, the latter according to intel is meant to be 20% slower which can be compensated by investing in a better graphics card right?

Its quite evident now that games are beginning to show more than 2 core utilization, so a quad would be a good but rather early investment if you arent planning on updating in like 4yrs right?

According to the change in trends in gaming how long will it be before the Q6600 at stock speed is a bottleneck in demanding games on 1650X1050 with v.high settings?

Is a boxed Q9550 at $265 overpriced? If so what should it be priced at as per performance? (I would appreciate proof)

The reason I seem to focused on the core 2 architecture is because you wont see a clean 60% clear advantage while moving to Nehalem and especially price to performance ratio. I dont believe in getting the best of the best if the relatively average can serve you almost as well or just well enough. I also do alot of virtual machining.

warren300
02-25-2010, 10:39 AM
why would you pay almost as much money for older tech?? you can buy an i5 750 chip cheap now

maxpain12
02-25-2010, 01:18 PM
It's all about your budget in the end. Hey if you got the money might as well go I5 but if you are looking at cost effectiveness then older Core architecture will work fine over the next couple of years at least. That said, there is further considerations if you decide to go with the Core 2 variants. For example it does not make much sense going for an Q9550 as the I5 750 can be had for cheaper. The Q9400 on the other hand would make much more sense from a cost to performance perspective. If I was you and had the money to drop on a Q9550, the I5 750 would be my choice since it has newer tech. Take into consideration the cost premium in going with Nehalem such as DDR 3 and socket 1366 Mobo's as well. If you were looking at upgrading an old 775 platform the Q9400 will serve you well for the price unless you don't mind coughing up $80 more for the Q9550.

maxpain12
02-25-2010, 01:48 PM
To answer your first question yes if you game and are looking for better FPS then the Q9400 would be a better bet provided you invest in a good graphics card. If the choice is between the graphics card and the CPU, the CPU should be put on the chopping block before the graphics card. But keep in mind that its a team effort and its always better to maximize performance of both the CPU and GPU. In other words don't cut corners but we all know its better said than done given limited resources. Below is a comparison so you can decide.

GPU Charts
Charts, benchmarks Gaming Graphics Cards Charts 2009 (High Quality, Update 3), Far Cry 2 (http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics-cards-charts-2009-high-quality-update-3/Far-Cry-2,1679.html)

CPU Charts
Charts, benchmarks 2009 Desktop CPU Charts (Update 1), Far Cry 2 1.0.1 (http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-charts-update-1/Far-Cry-2-1.0.1,1401.html)

The CPU's you mentioned have a marginal benefit at present for games, however the high res, high quality benchmarks show a good GPU has a more than linear gain when compared to the CPU charts. The newer multi threaded games might show different results that weight more on the CPU. Sorry but don't have that info yet.

warren300
02-25-2010, 09:29 PM
even the new i3 dual cores out perform the q6600 quads,so if you went for a 1156 mb you could save even more money and spend it on a more powerfull gpu

maxpain12
02-25-2010, 11:15 PM
even the new i3 dual cores out perform the q6600 quads,so if you went for a 1156 mb you could save even more money and spend it on a more powerfull gpu

Agreed, from a gaming point of view the I3 would be a great compromise.

XhKizits
02-28-2010, 05:18 AM
why would you pay almost as much money for older tech?? you can buy an i5 750 chip cheap now

I didnt mention I already have a board and ram. That chip requires a board and ram proly ddr3 to acompany it, so I dont see how you are paying as much money. To me old or new technology doesnt matter. What matters to me is price/performance ratio


even the new i3 dual cores out perform the q6600 quads,so if you went for a 1156 mb you could save even more money and spend it on a more powerfull gpu

I do alot of virtual machining and video conversion so 4 threads would be necessary for my case

XhKizits
02-28-2010, 05:43 AM
To answer your first question yes if you game and are looking for better FPS then the Q9400 would be a better bet provided you invest in a good graphics card. If the choice is between the graphics card and the CPU, the CPU should be put on the chopping block before the graphics card. But keep in mind that its a team effort and its always better to maximize performance of both the CPU and GPU. In other words don't cut corners but we all know its better said than done given limited resources. Below is a comparison so you can decide.

GPU Charts
Charts, benchmarks Gaming Graphics Cards Charts 2009 (High Quality, Update 3), Far Cry 2 (http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics-cards-charts-2009-high-quality-update-3/Far-Cry-2,1679.html)

CPU Charts
Charts, benchmarks 2009 Desktop CPU Charts (Update 1), Far Cry 2 1.0.1 (http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-charts-update-1/Far-Cry-2-1.0.1,1401.html)

The CPU's you mentioned have a marginal benefit at present for games, however the high res, high quality benchmarks show a good GPU has a more than linear gain when compared to the CPU charts. The newer multi threaded games might show different results that weight more on the CPU. Sorry but don't have that info yet.

Thats a really helpful post will use it to decide exactly what I want


Agreed, from a gaming point of view the I3 would be a great compromise. &
even the new i3 dual cores out perform the q6600 quads,so if you went for a 1156 mb you could save even more money and spend it on a more powerfull gpu

Am targetting the Q9400 or Q9550 from microcentre with the Q9550 retailing at about $170

maxpain12
02-28-2010, 12:43 PM
Wow if you can get the Q9550 for $170 that would be great. The whopping 12MB of L2 cache will be a huge advantage over the 6MB of the Q9400. Specially since you do video editing, that would be the way to go. At the time I upgraded my 775 rig the Q9400 was not available locally so I had to settle for the Q8400. With only 1MB of L2 per core its pretty measly (7% slower than Q9400) but I don't do any video editing or other CPU heavy work other than gaming so I can pull through. You can be expect a 20%+ gain from a Q9550 which is significant I think. Good luck.

infocus
05-25-2010, 03:46 AM
I read an artical that stated the new intel cores were overkill for the average home computer user!As for bottlenecks,I believe they start and end with machanical harddrives which is why most of us are waiting for SSD prices to come down.Everyone knows about Vistas loading times.With an SSD thats eliminated...