Which LGA 775 CPU is best for Windows 7/8.1/10 Surfing & Burning DVD's ONLY (NO GAMES)

The E7600 is the fastest out of those, which is probably what I would go with considering the age of the 775 socket.
The E7500 is a good choice as well, with slightly slower speeds, so its essentially the same if you can find a good deal.
Even for surfing and burning DVDs, rendering HD video in browser may prove to be a struggle for the Q6600 given that DVD burning doesn't use many cores from memory.

Edit: Upon uncovering that DVD burning software in recent years now utilizes hyper-threading and more cores, (thanks bambiboom) grab the Q6600 if you can find it at a relatively good price.
I think maybe 10%-15% more expensive than the E7600 is a good price to look for.

The E7500 and E7600 are the same thing, except for the clock speed, so either one of those would work (you're not gaming, so no need for the extra clock on the E7600). The Q6600 has 4 cores, but the cores are slightly weaker than both of those, and it's power draw is 105W (E7600/E7500 power-draw is 65W).

In short, leave out the Q6600 and get the cheapest out of the other two.

Yup. ^.^ The extra clock is still quite useful for multi tasking, even when surfing and burning DVDs, even though it may be negligible.

victor43,

If the choice is limited to the three listed, I'd vote for the Q6600 4-core. This is because video encoding is very demanding of the CPU.

I use a Dell Dimension E520 with an E6700 dual core @ 2.66GHz (originally Pentium D 830) to run a television ( I haven't had TV cable for about 10 years) I wanted to compress a short video from the camera (Lumix FZ) to fit with other stuff onto a CD. Looking at Task Manager /Performance, the encoding (Nero 2015) was running both cores at 100% and the processing took a long, time- far longer than the running time of the video. Now, I do all the encoding and copying on my main HP z420 workstation. I'm thinking of buying a QX 6800 4-core @ 2.93GHz (about $80) for the E520 though as encoding takes over the z420 I use for work. The QX6800 would be my recommendation for your use also.

For comparison:

Dell Dimension E520 (2007)( Revised): Core2 Duo E6700 dual core @2.66GHz > 4GB DDR2 667 > GeForce GT440 (1GB GDDR5) >Windows 7 Professional 64-bit > 2X WD 320GB> Dynex 32" LCD TV>
[Passmark system rating = 1219, CPU = 2024 / 2D= 457 / 3D=978 / Mem= 828 / Disk=576]

The Passmark average CPU rating for the QX6800 is 3644 E7600 = 2034 E7500 = 1890

Since about 2010, most encoding software has been multi-threaded and I would suggest for the strong probability of using that application to run a 4-core CPU. I have a dedicated sound computer and use a Q6600 for recording, MIDI . soft-synth, sound editing and encoding- it does the job well and is ultra-reliable. For this use, more cores will be more important than clock speed.

Not to throw a wrench into the project, but you might do a quick cost analysis on the upgrade and see if selling the system and adding the upgrade budget to move a generation or so newer couldn't give a better cost /performance ratio. For example:

Dell Precision T3500 Intel Xeon Quad Core W3550 3.06GHz 4GB DDR3 320GB SATA > sold for $76 + $19 shipping 4.2.16

The whole system costs less than used QX6800 and a Dell Precision T3500 with a W3550 4-core @ 3.06GHz has a top Passmark CPU score of 6030. It's also using DDR3-1333 instead of DDR2-667 RAM. There is a lot of upgrade potential left in a T3500 that is not possible with an LGA775 system. For example, the T3500 can use a Xeon X5687 4-core @ 3.6 /3.86GHz or a Xeon W3690 (or X5690) 6-core @ 3.47 /3.73GHz. I bought a PERC H310 SAS/SATA RAID controller ($38) for a T3500 and that will make the disk system 6GB/s. In a Precision T5500, adding an H310 alone changed the disk score (Samsung 840) from 1940 to 2649. I'm thinking of adding a USB 3.0 PCIe card to run an SATAIII external backup drive.

Cheers,

BambiBoom

HP z420 (2015) > Xeon E5-1660 v2 (6-core @ 3.7 / 4.0GHz) > 32GB DDR3 1866 ECC RAM > Quadro K4200 (4GB) > Samsung SM951 M.2 256GB AHCI / Intel 730 480GB (9SSDSC2BP480G4R5) / Western Digital Black WD1003FZEX 1TB> M-Audio 192 sound card > 600W PSU> > Windows 7 Professional 64-bit > Logitech z2300 speakers > 2X Dell Ultrasharp U2715H (2560 X 1440)>
[ Passmark Rating = 5581 > CPU= 14046 / 2D= 838 / 3D= 4694 / Mem= 2777 / Disk= 11559] [6.12.16]

Dell Precision T3500 (2011) (Rev 2) Xeon X5677 4-core @ 3.46 / 3.73GHz > 12GB (6X 2GB) DDR3-1333 ECC > Quadro 4000 (2GB) > PERC 6/i + Seagate 300GB 15K SAS ST3300657SS + WD Black 500GB > 525W PSU> Windows 7 Professional 64-bit > 2X Dell 19" LCD
[Passmark system rating = 2751> CPU = 7236 / 2D= 658 / 3D=2020 / Mem= 1875 / Disk=1221]

Having used all of the above CPUs, the Q6600 is by far the better choice. The extra cores really help.

Huh, didn't know this!
Haven't burned DVDs in a while, since maybe 2007!
They weren't that demanding from memory running a dual core processor back in the day, but I guess with better encoding nowadays that could be the way to go!
Could have been because I was running a 8600GT discrete from that actually now I think about it....
Any idea what the ipc is like for each of these CPUs?
Interested to see the difference out of curiosity.

Sounds very interesting.
Definitely seems like it would be worth it if you feel like you can trust yourself with handling a CPU die.
I personally wouldn't undergo this because I don't trust myself around such a sensitive area of a component, but given the situation you're in, it definitely looks like a good investment if you're up for it.
Not sure how voltage delivery would work with this, but given that its typically low for Xeon processors, the only thing I would be worried about would be how voltage limitation may apply itself and whether that could result in any long term damage.
Have a look around to see any reports of this, but you might be a bit hard pressed given that it seems to be quite a recent development.

"Huh, didn't know this!
Haven't burned DVDs in a while, since maybe 2007!
They weren't that demanding from memory running a dual core processor back in the day, but I guess with better encoding nowadays that could be the way to go!
Could have been because I was running a 8600GT discrete from that actually now I think about it....
Any idea what the ipc is like for each of these CPUs?
Interested to see the difference out of curiosity."

Chugalug,

Premiere I think started multi-threading in 2008 or 2009 and while progress has stalled -it's hardly worth having more than a single 8-core as it will not run on dual CPU's, the future is strongly oriented towards improved use of multiple cores. I think now there is at least one game that runs each main character on it's ow.n core. Certianly in workstation application- and I would include video editing /encoding / rendering /processing, more cores- and especially more CUDA cores are all good things to have.

I don't know of a searchable IPC chart for CPU's, but the Passmark CPU rating is a weighted ratio of system-executed IPC to single-threaded performance. I wish I knew the details of that score as it is a composite taking RAM, disk, and GPU co-processing performance into account at some unspecified ratio. That is more revealing of the component integration to the system and therefore the weak link in the chain. As Passmark is consistently comparatively over I think 300,000+ systems tested, I tend to use those ratings.

Interesting discussion.

Cheers,

BambiBoom

Hmm, thanks!
One of the more helpful people on this forum.
Good to know that multi-core applications are becoming more prominent. I know that typically for video rendering more cores result in a faster process, but I wasn't sure whether DVD burning was still that big of a market given how most video content is downloaded through convenient paid services or torrented nowadays. and hence whether or not the software would support modern utilities and optimization.
Passmark sounds like something I should use more often, definitely a helpful site for CPU oriented posts.
Thanks for your help with this! Good to see someone taking the time to address misinformation in higher detail rather than the standard condescending 'You're wrong' post.
Keep up the good work!

"Hmm, thanks!
One of the more helpful people on this forum.
Good to know that multi-core applications are becoming more prominent. I know that typically for video rendering more cores result in a faster process, but I wasn't sure whether DVD burning was still that big of a market given how most video content is downloaded through convenient paid services or torrented nowadays. and hence whether or not the software would support modern utilities and optimization.
Passmark sounds like something I should use more often, definitely a helpful site for CPU oriented posts.
Thanks for your help with this! Good to see someone taking the time to address misinformation in higher detail rather than the standard condescending 'You're wrong' post."
Keep up the good work!

Chugalug,

It seems that every generation of CPU's has more cores, but the ability of software to use it lags. The only program I know that is fully multi-thread scalar is Solidworks rendering- the more cores the better, whereas Premiere and After Effects have their maximum efficiency at 5-6 cores, and can not use a second CPU- it actually takes longer. Adobe CS /CC can not even recognize multiple CPU's- throw away that SLI and GTX 690. Adobe and Autodesk both might work on their multi-threading efficiency instead of concentrating on elaborate subscription-only pay-forever schemes. Still, they both make some fantastic products that are professional /industry standards.

I think you're correct that certain video processes such as DVD writing has been reduced as so much is streamed. I haven't had TV cable for at least 10 years and between Netflix, the library, YouTube, and various online sites am completely happy I've read statistics that assert that mobile computing has made desktop sales plummet -10% last year I think. On the other hand, a big proportion of queries among these forums are regarding video editing and rendering, both from 3D models and rendering /processing of video. But, I'd like to see someone animate the next "Avatar" or do a 6,000 part assembly in Solidworks on an iPhone!

Passmark: I strongly recommend Passmark Performance Test. The baselines of the 300,000 systems can be searched and ranked by: Rating , CPU, 2D, 3D, Mem, and Disk, model, motherboard, drive, GPU, number of cores, number of CPU- everything. Passmark also has charts fro all the main components and for CPU's includes the single-threaded rating- which I think is essential as it explains the trade-offs of calculation cycles to cores to clock speed.

Passmark results are remarkably useful and made by a group that is very serious about instrumentation and system performance analysis. Download the free 30-day full function trial of Performance Test and by the time that trial is done, I think the new version, Performance Test 9, will be out and you can buy it directly- I think it's $27 or so. I've been running and reporting a bit on the PT9 Beta and there are some good improvements.

Appreciate the generous compliments- thanks.

Cheers,

BambiBoom