It is strange, but I just do not have the desire to deal with upgrading at this point as I do not see any great advantages of doing so, but would like any suggestions you guys have.

Replacing at minimum, e6600, Gigabyte xxx? C2D mobo.
Have: 8800gts, 550 trupower antec PSU, 4gb PC6400 OZC gskill (555512).

My goal is to play COD4 1650x1050 windowed mode faster, but I am guessing I am better off waiting until the 9x series from NVIDIA, specificity the 9800, since my other machine ironically has the ATI version installed.

Any reason to splurge at this point? Ideas? I am considering going to the e8400 for the increased FSB as it seems going to the q6600 would not present much of a realword benefit at this time.

Also, anyone suggest a PSU ~750watts that is not only modular, but has long cables? My case mounts the PSU on the bottom and expects you to route the cables behind the mobo plate and down from the top.

Thanks!

If that's a G92 8800GTS your PC owns for games - the only reason to upgrade it right now is to get a few extra frames.

If it's a G80 then you'll get a lot of mileage out of an 8800GT, 8800GTS or even the new 3870X2.

Unless you're into encoding or some other quad-core friendly activity you won't get much vfm from upgrading your chip.

Just re-read your post.

If your e6600 is hosed, and you HAVE to buy, then personally I'd get a quad core as you'll get longer out of it in the long term for games. If you're into encoding or some other quad-core friendly activity then all the better.

I don't know if it is a G80 or G92. I purchased it early on when the GTS's came out. Not sure how to tell either.

I only achieve about 50-70 FPS in COD4 with near max quality (windowed mode 1680x1050...). Need more!

OH wow, I really missed a thread or two. I see the difference and mine would be the G80 640mb version.

Intriguing. I might have to Go G90 GTX or something.

Edit; No GTX so I might wait then.
And you recommend a q6600 over a e8400???

I have no recomendations, but I will have nightmares about your avatar.

E8400>e6850. E6850>q6600 at many tasks, specifically gaming.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/c [...] html#sect0

edit is bold

But is e8499>q6600?

I would rather have the faster clock and start from there and upgrade to a quad once it becomes more mainstream.

E8400 is faster than e6850 at EVERYTHING! E6850 is faster than Q6600 at some things. Yes, e8400 is faster than q6600 (O'cing aside). I upgraded this system from q6600 to e8400. I too am waiting for the 45nm quads at good prices. The e8400 is fast and works well for me. It's fun. I also use these everyday...q6600, e6600, amd 4800 x2, AMD FX55, Pentium D 925, Pentium D 805, AMD 3700, AMD 3400, Intel 2.5, AMD Athlon 3200 (she's a fast machine) . E8400=fast, cool, efficient, SSE 4.1. E8400 clocks to 3.6 on stock cooler with no voltage increase. I paid $189 which is great!.

$189 for the 8400?!?
Newegg is out of stock at 2x that price.


I noticed that nehalem is scheduled for Q4 this year and will be a significant change. I am thinking I might want to skimp now and wait till end of year. But at ~$200 it would be worth grabbing.

Grab one Comptia, they are fast, you will like it. Nehalem will be interesting and agin, hard to resist I'm sure.

http://microcenter.com/single_prod [...] id=0281097