Right got me E6600 and? err? fast errm? no!

[Helix47]

After all the hype I have been reading about the Duo`s I splashed out £200 (not including new board) and it really doesnt seem that much quicker than my D640 Presser @3.2? whats the crack guys?

 

[godman]

Hmmmm..... OVERCLOCK! :lol: j/k

Have you got the latest BIOS? If not then this could give you a little bit more performance, is the multiplier is set to x9? Not x6 or anything lower than default, as this would give you lower performance. (check in BIOS)

Also is the CPU being cooled efffectively (eg. it might be throttling)

 

[mpjesse]

*sighs*

 

[Mex]

May I ask what you do with your computer? Because if you're just surfing the web and using Word, then you're not going to see much of a difference.

 

[mpjesse]

exactly

 

[turpit]

After all the hype I have been reading about the Duo`s I splashed out £200 (not including new board) and it really doesnt seem that much quicker than my D640 Presser @3.2? whats the crack guys?

Apparently that which you a smoking. Just kidding. :lol:

I dont know what your doing with yours, but my E6600 is amazing. It will actually rip a CD faster than I can transfer the same previously ripped files from my old computer over. It renders 3D so fast, I no longer have time to get up and go for a bite to eat. Basically, it shifts the bottlenecks to every other system component, so that may be what your seeing..slow HDDs, optical drives video card etc.

 

[dragonsprayer]

i have been building Intel (amti's too) systems for many years - and you are right that your system might seem almost as fast. the reality is that the C2D will due some intensive cpu type things around 25-33% faster - but for the average user your observation is correct
<------965 4.5ghz --- in phots

the system in the photo next this post is similar slight faster and has another core no biggie with HT, 4.5ghz - a C2D@ 3ghz is about the same!

IFB (AMTI is always #2) The answer is C!


turn on spysweeper spydoctor and your system will grind down - C2D will just hum along. you are obeserving the mutltaksing ablity of intel!

 

[NotAPimecone]

Yeah, my E6400, at stock speed (2.13GHz), is way faster (at least 50%) than my old Pentium 630 (3.0GHz) for video encoding. And it's overclocked by about 60% over stock (3.4GHz)

But it doesn't surf the web, or do word processing, or send email any faster.

 

[Helix47]

I got the Asus P5W DH Deluxe and flashed the bios to 1901 before installing the
CPU? not checked on the x6/x9 (me bad was excited) and to answer the questions about games BF2/Cod2 and most FPS jobs, I can see an improvement on desktop but games dont really seem any quicker? tried 3dmark 06 (I know its only synthetic but?) on my old D640 got 3778 and on my new E6600 got 4125 hmm! not much when when your £200 shorter?

Only giving half the story here really full spec is:
E6600
2GB 533 mem (crap I know)
7900GT
Asus P5W DH Deluxe
Audigy 2
Maxtor 160GB Sata
450W Psu
What do you think?

 

[Helix47]

Maybe I was expecting to much? oh well looks like next weeks wages going on a 8800 (getting sick of this Pc lark)

 

[NotAPimecone]

Here's the thing:

Your CPU doesn't help that much in games. Your old CPU was just fine for current games, and your graphics card is the limiting factor.

One thing I'm confused about: You keep mentioning your "Pentium D640'. Does that exist? I only know of the single core Pentium 640, and the dual-core Pentium D 840.

 

[Helix47]

it might have been a D641 but sure it was D640 if you look on the cpu charts its on there? I cant believe my 7900GT is the bottleneck its only 11 months old? I was planning on getting a 8800GTS 320 next week if funds can manage it, but anyway I just started this post just incase there was something I had missed about the E6600?

 

[Apple_Fritters]

I can see an improvement on desktop but games dont really seem any quicker?

If your frame rates were 100FPS before, and now they're 180FPS; then there is no visible difference.

If you're complaining about load times, then that's a harddrive or ram issue.

Benchmarks for Call o' Duty

 

[Helix47]

No No on Cod2 I was getting fps of about 40-50 on DX9 setting now I am getting about 60 which doesnt seem like much more! its all about the first person shooters for me and just hoped for a huge difference, reading the forums just thought it might have been something I had missed in bios or something?

 

[jaguarskx]

No No on Cod2 I was getting fps of about 40-50 on DX9 setting now I am getting about 60 which doesnt seem like much more! its all about the first person shooters for me and just hoped for a huge difference, reading the forums just thought it might have been something I had missed in bios or something?

50FPS to 60FPS is a 20% increase. Consider the fact that most games are limited by the the video card. Therefore a 20% increase is rather significant for a CPU.

 

[Apple_Fritters]

You might do a quick test of all the resolutions:
1. 800x600 = xxxFPS
2. 1024x768 = xxxFPS
3. 1280x1024 = xxxFPS
4. 1600x1200 = xxxFPS

IF the frame rates decrease alot with each step,
THEN your CPU is not the bottleneck.

IF the frame rates stay the same OR change ~5%,
THEN your CPU is the bottleneck.

Every increase in resolution puts more stress on the video card because more pixels to draw equals more work for the GPU.

Game settings will drag down performance but look nice.
You might need a faster video card, but atleast you've got a nice CPU now.

 

[Apple_Fritters]

Oh, yeah.

And if you have V-SYNC turned on then your benchmarks may not show more than the refresh rate of your monitor. I think thats how it works.

 

[slim142]

basic or every-day stuff like email and internet wont benefit from a c2d, in fact, you will see gains in games, video and audio encoding, super pi,orthos,prime95,pcmark etc

 

[kitchenshark]

Is there any link or something to confirm what you say here? I'd really like to know because this theory might finally explain why I have dismal stutter and lag and delay on-screen in games even when the benchmarks are reporting 100-140fps (verticle sync enabled benchmarks sink to around 60fps (60hz monitor) but still lag and stutter a bit).

System if anyone wants to know:

Single core 3800+ @stock
2Gb Patriot 2-3-2-5 DDR 400
eVGA 7600GT 256mb PCI-e
Raptor 74Gb
Antec Truepower 1.0 550watt

 

[ryokinshin]

ur gfx card isnt crap, but there are better cards now and relative to other cards its old60 fps is pretty gd for max settings dx9 cod2 with 7900gt

 

[Apple_Fritters]

The only thing I can think of is that your frames drop out when there is a lot of action happening. If your benchmarks are really as high as 140FPS, then that might not be the case. Still, it's possible. Look at this graph.

At some points in the game, FPS are well above 60 and then come crashing down to >25. If the game plays fine until you get into a firefight(whatever), then that is the problem...maybe. Of course, lagging frame rates while fighting is bad...it's bad, Okay. :lol:

Also, going from 140FPS to less than 30 sounds unlikely. It might be something else.

 

[dasickninja]

After all the hype I have been reading about the Duo`s I splashed out £200 (not including new board) and it really doesnt seem that much quicker than my D640 Presser @3.2? whats the crack guys?

Oh is that so? Too bad, I'll take it off your hands and give you the 945D I received.

 

[Ranman68k]

"Right got me E6600 and? err? fast errm? no!"

Oh my 8O

I had to read the first post before I could understand the title.

 

[nevesis]

i upgraded from a 3 year old dell inspiron 5100 notebook (2.4ghz) and at first I didnt notice _THAT_ much of a speed increase.... until I started using my computer for a bit, now it seems to get even faster everyday.

 

[randomizer]

I got the Asus P5W DH Deluxe and flashed the bios to 1901 before installing the
CPU? not checked on the x6/x9 (me bad was excited) and to answer the questions about games BF2/Cod2 and most FPS jobs, I can see an improvement on desktop but games dont really seem any quicker? tried 3dmark 06 (I know its only synthetic but?) on my old D640 got 3778 and on my new E6600 got 4125 hmm! not much when when your £200 shorter?

You cant use 3dmark06 to compare its very gpu bound coz its so intensive. use 03/05 instead.