How will SandyBridge stack up against my CPU?

Your CPU is nothing like the Core i7 920.

All Core iSeries processors perform +28% more work per clock cycle than a Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad.

Hyper-Threading, and Integrated Memory Controller, Better L2 and L3 caches, and various other technologies (DMI, QPI, PCIe v2.1, and more) just sweeten the deal.

An Intel® Core™ i3-370M Processor (3M cache, 2.40 GHz) would provide competition to a Core 2 Duo Q9550 despite having only one quarter the of cache. This is due to the integrated memory controller and a (long overdue) restructure of the way chipsets are laid out now.

By third quarter 2011 it will be scary how much processing power Joe Average can get a hold of for under US$2,000 (full system).


Sure, they both have 4 cores, but that's about the end of the similarities.

^ rather negative post you have there.

Hello, I was wondering what you do with your computer. If its high end (not just learning) CAD, rendering, etc then a new CPU will be good for you.

However if your gaming your CPU will be sufficient, so if you game then just smack in a new graphics card, 6870? They come out in November.

Also I think the 9550 is similar to the Phenom II X4's in performance which means they should be plenty for most applications.

Hope that helps.

if you are waiting til 2011, i would put my money on bulldozer being the way to go.

looking itno both sides, it seems like bulldozer is going to be a revolution. I'm really excited to see how well it works.

but to be honest, we cant say. you need to reevaluate the options when the chips are available, and we know how they perform.

Although I have to agree that an i7-920 can quite thoroughly beat a Q9550, it isn't as bad as you're making it out to be. An i3-370M is NOTHING like a Q9550, and will be quite soundly beat in almost everything. Sure, it'll handily beat something like a 2.33GHz Core 2 Duo, but against a 2.83GHz Core 2 Quad, it is quite simply outmatched.

Well, I am running a Core 2 Duo (E6600, 2.4GHz, Dual-core, 4MB L2 cache, 800 FSB).

I've also been doing the research, as a lot of workplaces where I am ask questions like this during job interviews. Especially when rolling out new Operating Systems.

- I am sorry that it does read in a negative tone, I've been a bit sick lately.

Most of the time, I'm either playing FSX (needs a good dual core CPU around 3 GHz or better, but I have a lot of CPU intensive addons, so a quad is best), surfing the net, or on occasion I do some video encoding (with x264).

For a graphics card, I have a BFG GTX 280 1 GB (no SLI).

How hardcore are you at your FSX? It seems that game is really CPU intensive. Can you max it at the moment? If you can't is that the reason you want to upgrade?

How much video encoding? Do you think that it would be beneficial spend money to speed it up.

You don't need to upgrade your GPU for what you do. If you are happy with your performance in FSX and video encoding, what is your reason for an upgrade?

Thanks.

For FSX, I believe it goes faster the more cores you throw at it. Tom's did include it in reviews before and it has proven to be a mostly cpu-limited game.

againn dip, totally wrong. architecture is MUCH more important than clock speed.

put a 3.8ghz Phenom against a 2.66ghz i7 and see what result you get.

That thread shows the i7 consistently beating the core2 CPU by 20 frames when using a high end GPU.

not that its relevent. We are talking about comparing OCs, and stock clocks will not do that accurately.

the point is, an i7 is superior to a core2quad unless the Clockspeed difference is HUGE. and allowing for one to be OCd without the other, is hardly fair testing methodology.

i strongly disagree, i3's never beat any core2Quad...... u r comparing dual vs Quad.... (i know it's totally depends on app's and games)... still disagree........

My advice for everyone still on LGA775 is to WAIT. There have been enough reports of another new Intel socket that a move to i5/i7 doesn't make much sense at this point.

As for Bulldozer, I have significant doubts about how much of an improvement it will be. We'll see...

To be honest, a 3.8GHz PhII or C2Q would have a pretty good shot against a 2.66GHz i7, and would beat it in many (if not most) ways. C2Q's beat PhIIs at the same clock speed too, so a 3.8 C2Q would be quite fast, and able to handle just about anything you throw at it.

Yeah your right that there are new sockets coming, but Intel users will be waiting a long time if they want to pass up I3/I5/I7, Sandy Bridge is keeping those names.  

this is my point though. it takes more than an extra ghz clockspeed for the performance to be equaled. and in no situation will one be able to overclock a ghz more than the other.

hence why the architecture is far more important than the clockspeed.

I use FSX regularly. I run it with payware scenery addons and CPU intensive planes (PMDG 747-8i). This plane uses a lot of resources, but it is the best when it comes to realism and handling. It's like your flying the real thing (Certified by Boeing).

As for settings, they're okay right now, but I always wanted to make some videos, but whenever I use Fraps, my FPS just drops, so Fraps is taking away resources from FSX (lower FPS). From what I've been told Fraps is the best recording software.

For maxing it out, nothing really today can do it. Even the Core i7 980X struggles when you add payware planes like the one I mentioned into the mix. And since FSX mainly uses one core, but the rest are either at 50% or lower it doesn't take full advantage of the CPU. It's like someone above said, more cores seems to help.

I know some have mentioned that I keep my Q9550 and overclock it, but I'm just not comfortable with it. That, and it will void my warranty. With FSX and overclocking the difference between 2.8 GHz and 4 GHz is around 7 FPS or so. Nothing big.

@ dipankar2007ind & welshmousepk
Seriously guys? I'm sure you could use PM to do this and then post back when you have a consensus... It really doesn't look too good.

@ Magnetite
Hello. It seems very slack that FSX does not use all the cores at 100%, (unless the stuff can't be done in parallel). Even so when you use Fraps for recording it shouldn't drop the performance of FSX at all since theres enough CPU left over for it, or maybe your CPU runs at 100%?

Why should more cores help if the cores are not at 100%? A single processor running at 100% is better than the same one with 50% on both cores. Just saying...

If your not comfortable with OCing then I guess its not an option. Do you have an aftermarket cooler? I think if you wanted to OC you should not do it under pressure with the aim of getting 4GHz, instead just make it a fun job by seeing what you can do. 7 FPS seems like a big performance boost, thats f your on 30fps now though. By the way it doesn't really void your warranty as Intel can't tell...

If you really think it is worth paying the $1000 or so to get a high end new computer just to play FSX then I'd say go for the new processors from either AMD or intel (which ever prove to be better) when they come out. However maybe this money would be better spent on a yoke, peddles, throttle, etc. (thats if you don't have them already). I think this will advance your experience WAY more then just get I bit better visuals.

So if you don't have the Flight Simulator setup then I'd say that would be a much better avenue. However you already have it then maybe if you can afford the cost then go for it in 6 months or whenever the new processors start hitting the market.

You're right punkinator. Sorry OP for derailing. i was trying to simply make sure you got correct info, but got carried away.

on topic, your current CPU is fine for flight simulator. however an i7 would be a considerable improvement.

Your own link shows the i7-920 demolishing the Q9550, winning every single comparson (often by a large margin). For a really good example of architectural differences, take a look at this:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/48?vs=109

That shows an i5-750 holding its own against the QX9770, despite a 500MHz clockspeed disadvantage and no hyperthreading. Any i7 will hold its own against a 3.8GHz Q9550, and although a stock 920 might lose occasionally against a 3.8GHz core 2 quad, you could easily overclock the 920, and even with just a mild (~3.2GHz) overclock, it should handily beat even a 3.8GHz C2Q.

I guess I want a socket that's going to last a while and not have to buy a whole new system every 2 years. Socket 775 was around for a while, and that's kind of what I'm looking for in a socket. One that will last a while. I know the 775 is obsolete, but whatever the next socket which will last more than 2 years, that's probably one for me to check out. That way I only need to replace the CPU, and a few other components instead of building a whole new machine.

As for my cooling, I'm using the Arctic Freezer 7 Pro w/MX-2 paste. In the summer it usually runs at around 40-50 C at idle (depending on the core), and around 60-70 C at max. I usually clean out my case every month or so with some compressed air. I have four 120mm fans and they're all on high.