Upgrade to e5200 from e2180?

[Plyro109]

Okay, I've come into about $80, which is enough for me to replace my e2180, which, admittedly, overclocks pretty well.

Would it be worthwhile to upgrade from an e2180 overclocked to 3.33Ghz to an e5200, which looks to clock between 3.6-4Ghz? (Cooling is a Monsoon II TEC Cooler, so high voltages and such arn't a problem.)

At the same speed, the e5200 should be about 10-15% faster because of the archetecture updates and the cache, right?

So would it be worthwhile to go for that?

And $180 for the Q6600 or Q8200 is a LOT more than I'm willing to spend. (I won't be making much more money for putting towards this for about six-eight months, either.)

The rest of my computer is...

GA-P35-DS3L
4GB DDR2 800
500GB HDD
ATI HD 4850
22" Acer Monitor - 1680x1050 resolution.

 

[werxen]

if 3.3 is not fast enough for you then switch. although im curious what you are running that 3.3 is not fast enough

 

[spathotan]

an E5200 will be a modest upgrade yes, worth it. However if you could squeeze out a few more bucks just get a E7300 which is far greater. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115132&Tpk=E7300

If not, the E5200 will be good, overclocks well. And will release a bit of bottleneck on that 4850 more than likely.

 

[Plyro109]

Well, the main reason I'm wondering is the cache. Me and my friends have identical systems save for the processor and heatsink (even the OS is the same, from the same day install. -Windows 7 beta), and it's an e4400 @ 3Ghz.

The difference is that his system runs our favorite games with MUCH higher minimum frame rates at the exact same settings. Fallout 3, for example, on his system dips down to about 35fps, while mine dips down to 3-5 at times. Maximum framerates are about the same, and because of the low dips, my average frames took a massive hit, too.

This WAS happening before I switched to Vista, or 7, so the only reason I can think of is a hard drive issue (even went to a basic install of Vista once with nothing installed but the game and drivers, and it did it. Even tried installing on a secondary hard drive of mine for no difference, too....) or it's the amount of cache difference.

It's not just Fallout 3, Though. It's Red Alert 3, Far Cry 2, Crysis Warhead, and more.

 

[dragonsprayer]

as long as you can get the 3.6-4ghz you will feel more repsonsive vs 3.3ghz

 

[dragonsprayer]

if 3.3 is not fast enough for you then switch. although im curious what you are running that 3.3 is not fast enough

the older c2d limit out at 3.4ghz in many cases i run a e6750 at 425fsb or 3.4ghz

above that stablity suffers but it could be chipset to p35 tops out especially in micro atx box - i use


i run a shuttle with 4ghz e0 e8500 both with raid0 and this is 3.4ghz - its a tought call i agree

save up for i7