Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Core 2 Quads vs new architecture




  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    30

    Default Core 2 Quads vs new architecture

    According to this article Intel 'Lynnfield' Core i5 750 and Core i7 870 Performance Testing What's New? :: TweakTown
    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.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Birmingham,Great Britain
    Posts
    600

    Default Re: Core 2 Quads vs new architecture

    why would you pay almost as much money for older tech?? you can buy an i5 750 chip cheap now
    Gigabyte ex58-ud5 f12 bios
    Intel i7 920 d0 @3.8ghz 24/7-normal cpu voltage 1.18750v/c1e/turbo/multi threading enabled
    Ocz reaper DDR3 PC3-14400 (1800MHz) 3x2gb (OCZ3RPR1800LV6GK) 8-8-8-24-1t-@1.64v-1.3qpi
    Thermolab Baram cpu cooler
    Dual Boot
    1xsamsung 750gb hard drive-win7 ultimate 64
    1xsamsung 750gb hard drive-windows xp pro 32
    Ati x1950 pro gpu
    Logitech X-530 5.1 Speakers
    1050w psu
    Nzxt lexa case
    http://i40.tinypic.com/2z3w377.jpg <=3.8ghz overclock template

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Colombo, Sri Lanka
    Posts
    7

    Cool Re: Core 2 Quads vs new architecture

    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.
    It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required. - Sir Winston Churchill

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Colombo, Sri Lanka
    Posts
    7

    Default Re: Core 2 Quads vs new architecture

    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

    CPU Charts
    Charts, benchmarks 2009 Desktop CPU Charts (Update 1), Far Cry 2 1.0.1

    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.
    It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required. - Sir Winston Churchill

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Birmingham,Great Britain
    Posts
    600

    Default Re: Core 2 Quads vs new architecture

    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
    Gigabyte ex58-ud5 f12 bios
    Intel i7 920 d0 @3.8ghz 24/7-normal cpu voltage 1.18750v/c1e/turbo/multi threading enabled
    Ocz reaper DDR3 PC3-14400 (1800MHz) 3x2gb (OCZ3RPR1800LV6GK) 8-8-8-24-1t-@1.64v-1.3qpi
    Thermolab Baram cpu cooler
    Dual Boot
    1xsamsung 750gb hard drive-win7 ultimate 64
    1xsamsung 750gb hard drive-windows xp pro 32
    Ati x1950 pro gpu
    Logitech X-530 5.1 Speakers
    1050w psu
    Nzxt lexa case
    http://i40.tinypic.com/2z3w377.jpg <=3.8ghz overclock template

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Colombo, Sri Lanka
    Posts
    7

    Default Re: Core 2 Quads vs new architecture

    Quote Originally Posted by warren300 View Post
    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.
    It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required. - Sir Winston Churchill

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    30

    Default Re: Core 2 Quads vs new architecture

    Quote Originally Posted by warren300 View Post
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by warren300 View Post
    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
    Last edited by XhKizits; 02-28-2010 at 04:20 AM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    30

    Default Re: Core 2 Quads vs new architecture

    Quote Originally Posted by maxpain12 View Post
    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

    CPU Charts
    Charts, benchmarks 2009 Desktop CPU Charts (Update 1), Far Cry 2 1.0.1

    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

    Quote Originally Posted by maxpain12 View Post
    Agreed, from a gaming point of view the I3 would be a great compromise.
    &
    Quote Originally Posted by warren300 View Post
    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

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Colombo, Sri Lanka
    Posts
    7

    Default Re: Core 2 Quads vs new architecture

    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.
    It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required. - Sir Winston Churchill

  10. #10
    infocus's Avatar
    infocus is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    35

    Default Re: Core 2 Quads vs new architecture

    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...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •