I was thinking of building a gaming rig in September with a Q6600, 8800GTX, and 2GB RAM but should I wait for the 45nm Penryns and Wolfdales to come out at the end of the year? Will these be a definite advantage to a 45nm processor to the ones this generation or will a Q6600 last me for at least 3 years down the road? Also, are these new processors confirmed for the end of 07? General computer usage and gaming are equally important. Thanks.
aevm
Illustrious
- May 18, 2007
- 11,974
- 0
- 41,960
I guess you are not in a hurry, or you wouldn't be asking the question. It's worth waiting IMO, but only if you have a large budget and you're serious about not doing any upgrades to CPU or GPU for 3 years and you really need lots of processing power.
I'm waiting for a 3.16 GHz 45nm quad CPU and a 9800 GTX. On the other hand, just these two together will probably cost $2000, which means most people won't bother with them.
They are confirmed, as in "VPs from Intel and nVidia have made promises to investors in interviews". There's no 100% guarantee, but they might actually deliver on schedule. It's not like the ATI/AMD case where the merger has created chaos and schedules were blown.
A Q6600 will last you 3 years all right. An 8800 GTX should last you 3 years, unless you have a large monitor (1920x1200 or more) and you want to play Crysis or other demanding games with maximum eye-candy). Right now there is no GPU capable of handling DX10 properly, that's the main reason why I'll wait for the 9800 GTX. Even the 8800 GTX gets as low as 10 fps in some DX10 games or demos at higher resolutions, yuck...
Performance comparisons:
- the 3.16 GHz quad Penryn will have 31.6% speed advantage over the Q6600 thanks to frequency alone.
- add 2% to 6% thanks to the higher FSB (Anandtech compared QX6850 & QX6700 and got these numbers)
- improved floating point unit (may impact some applications a lot, e.g. CAD or Flight Simulator, others not at all)
- lots of new SSE instructions (may speed up video encoding by 40% with the right software)
- better power management, less power consumption, less heat, less noise from fans (at the same clock, that is)
- it will overclock better
Whether this is worth waiting 6 months and paying about $700 more, you decide for yourself.
I'm waiting for a 3.16 GHz 45nm quad CPU and a 9800 GTX. On the other hand, just these two together will probably cost $2000, which means most people won't bother with them.
They are confirmed, as in "VPs from Intel and nVidia have made promises to investors in interviews". There's no 100% guarantee, but they might actually deliver on schedule. It's not like the ATI/AMD case where the merger has created chaos and schedules were blown.
A Q6600 will last you 3 years all right. An 8800 GTX should last you 3 years, unless you have a large monitor (1920x1200 or more) and you want to play Crysis or other demanding games with maximum eye-candy). Right now there is no GPU capable of handling DX10 properly, that's the main reason why I'll wait for the 9800 GTX. Even the 8800 GTX gets as low as 10 fps in some DX10 games or demos at higher resolutions, yuck...
Performance comparisons:
- the 3.16 GHz quad Penryn will have 31.6% speed advantage over the Q6600 thanks to frequency alone.
- add 2% to 6% thanks to the higher FSB (Anandtech compared QX6850 & QX6700 and got these numbers)
- improved floating point unit (may impact some applications a lot, e.g. CAD or Flight Simulator, others not at all)
- lots of new SSE instructions (may speed up video encoding by 40% with the right software)
- better power management, less power consumption, less heat, less noise from fans (at the same clock, that is)
- it will overclock better
Whether this is worth waiting 6 months and paying about $700 more, you decide for yourself.
Aevm, that's a very nice comparison...thanks for taking the time to type that out! Maybe you could help me analyze my situation a bit further. =) The earliest I will build my rig will be Sept (when I get back to college). I will be on a budget and I'm aiming for $1600 (including monitor and peripherals). I want to avoid any upgrades as possible (except maybe the addition of more RAM) because I tend to get carried away with them.
As for gaming, I don't need the absolute MAX eye candy but high or ultra high would be nice... I would also pick frame rate over flashiness any day without sacrifing too much. It would be nice to handle the most current games for at least 2 years to come but apart from that I plan to use this rig to maximize my Vista experience and general multimedia purposes (music, HD video, etc...). Another question I is, will the Q6600 be able to handle 64 bit Vista with no slowdown as well as nex gen processors? It's very important for me to get the most out of my everyday computing uses. I highly doubt I will be needing processing power for any super demanding applications and the largest monitor size I will consider is 22".
So should I just go with the Kentsfields and save myself some money from any unnessesary performance boosts? Also, if I were to consider upgrading either the video card or CPU, would it make much more sense to upgrade to a Nvidia 9 series and ditch the 8800? Q6600 and other Kentsfield series should not bottleneck video card performance for quite some time right? I want to make the best choice down the road... Currently the new stuff Intel is putting out is VERY tempting...ugh =( Thanks.
As for gaming, I don't need the absolute MAX eye candy but high or ultra high would be nice... I would also pick frame rate over flashiness any day without sacrifing too much. It would be nice to handle the most current games for at least 2 years to come but apart from that I plan to use this rig to maximize my Vista experience and general multimedia purposes (music, HD video, etc...). Another question I is, will the Q6600 be able to handle 64 bit Vista with no slowdown as well as nex gen processors? It's very important for me to get the most out of my everyday computing uses. I highly doubt I will be needing processing power for any super demanding applications and the largest monitor size I will consider is 22".
So should I just go with the Kentsfields and save myself some money from any unnessesary performance boosts? Also, if I were to consider upgrading either the video card or CPU, would it make much more sense to upgrade to a Nvidia 9 series and ditch the 8800? Q6600 and other Kentsfield series should not bottleneck video card performance for quite some time right? I want to make the best choice down the road... Currently the new stuff Intel is putting out is VERY tempting...ugh =( Thanks.
zenmaster
Splendid
- Feb 21, 2006
- 3,867
- 0
- 22,790
The current CPUs can easily give you far more power than you need.
There is no need to wait.
Build the computer when you want and need it.
As previously stated, there will always be better stuff but even the cheapest E4300 C2D can easily be tweaked to provide extreme power.
In September, you will likely want to get a P35 Mobo and a C2D with a G0 Stepping. (Any 1333 FSB chip or the Q6600 which will soo migrate to that stepping.)
Ask in September though.
There is no need to wait.
Build the computer when you want and need it.
As previously stated, there will always be better stuff but even the cheapest E4300 C2D can easily be tweaked to provide extreme power.
In September, you will likely want to get a P35 Mobo and a C2D with a G0 Stepping. (Any 1333 FSB chip or the Q6600 which will soo migrate to that stepping.)
Ask in September though.
aevm
Illustrious
- May 18, 2007
- 11,974
- 0
- 41,960
Yeah, we'll know a lot more in September, ask again then. Hopefully the 8800 GTX will be cheaper by then too.
In the meantime, why don't you study the threads about overclocking on this forum so you're ready when you order the parts. Then get a Q6600, bring it to 3 GHz, you'll be all set :lol:
In the meantime, why don't you study the threads about overclocking on this forum so you're ready when you order the parts. Then get a Q6600, bring it to 3 GHz, you'll be all set :lol:
I have a question? I have a D875pbz motherboard with socket 478 @3.0 GHZ. 1 gig of ram. 2 10,000 rpm western digital HD's , 450w power supply and a Radeon x1600 pro OC'd Would it be worth upgrading my processor to an extreem edition 3.4 GHZ and the ATI x1950xt.
aevm
Illustrious
- May 18, 2007
- 11,974
- 0
- 41,960
Programming on weekdays, Crysis and Hellgate on weekends. I usually have lots of processes active - Visual Studio.Net, IIS, SQL Server, IE/Netscape/FireFox (have to test my program in all of them). Visual Studio.Net 2008 will show up early next year and based on Microsoft's history I'd rather have a Penryn to push it than a Q6600. I'm sure the Q6600 would do nicely, but even half an hour saved every day adds up over 3 years...
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 3K
-
Question Can I just upgrade my graphics card or should I be upgrading my processor as well for UE5?- Started by Tolstoy1990
- Replies: 11
-
Question Microsoft Defender found Trojans on my PC- Started by Tommy Sawyer
- Replies: 4
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram