Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Worth upgrading to quad 775??

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Overclocking
  • Chip
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 28, 2010 3:05:17 AM

hello all.
im planning to upgrade my current cpu e6300 wolfdale 2.8 OCed to 3.65
i posted a thread under overclocking about this chip. unfortunately i got a bad chip that wont overclock.
lots of people got this chip at 4.0 with only 1.33-1.35 Vcore. but my chip is drinking 1.42 to get to 3.65

so here i am. wondering to find something better.
heres my spec btw
Gigabyte P35 DS3L
E6300 duh
2GB ddr2 800
1GB ddr2 667 both running at 812 with bumped up voltage
GTS 250 EVGA 512MB
450VX Corsair psu
this is pretty much the IMPORTANT components

so my question today is should i keep my P35 and get Q9000 Series? or upgrade my whole platform (which i dont think i can afford) with similar performance with Q9000 such as i5 quad or i7 quads.
basically if q9000 will not get bottlenecked by p35, thats the way i want to go.
and i expect SOME overclocking with either q9000 or i7.

looks like q9550 can go around 3.6 with 1.33V. and 4.0 with 1.4V as long as cooler can handle the heat

so what r ur opinions?

More about : worth upgrading quad 775

a c 105 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
September 28, 2010 3:14:30 AM

why do you want to upgrade? i assume its for gaming, what issues are you having in what games? what resolution are you gaming at? Are you running XP, Vista, Win 7?

Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
September 28, 2010 3:19:56 AM

I like the quad core upgrade idea. I think you'll get some performance gains and more life out of your current rig until you can afford a system upgrade. The Q9505 looks pretty nice at $240. Or the one you mention.

Actually for gaming I would consider getting a faster video card and keeping the wolfdale.

I think that really isn't a bad overclock, seems like a pretty zippy machine to me.
Score
0
Related resources
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
September 28, 2010 3:33:11 AM

That 1GB of DDR2 667 could be holding you back and preventing you from going higher. It's really best to get a match set of RAM that is meant to run in Dual Channel. I would take out that 1GB stick and see if you the FSB can't be raised a bit more without it.

Anyway, yes it would be worth it to upgrade to a Q9000 (Q9450 if you can find it) and overclock it. Only the 9450 9550 and 9650 have the full 12MB of cache. The other Q9000 chips only have half that with 6MB cache. Even with the 6MB chips though many games will benefit from the extra two cores as will multitasking. It's honestly a bit difficult to justify the purchase of the 12MB chips though when you can get a newer AMD quad core and motherboard or i3 with motherboard for around the same price. Of course, if it was me I would get a Q9550, new RAM (or at least another stick that matches the 2GB you currently have), and overclock the Crap out of it
Score
0
September 28, 2010 8:07:36 AM

Get another 2 GB Ram card of 800 MHz aswell, The rest is fine
Score
0
September 28, 2010 1:20:09 PM

I agree match the ram modules and you'll see a slight jump, the Q9000 series isn't worth the money really in my opinion, you'd nearly get a decent i5 and motherboard for the same price and since you're upgrading the ram ya might as well get ddr3 at the same time. a Q8000 series might be more economical, that said I've a Q6600 and it's a beaut!
That said you could just match the ram and upgrade the GPU and you'll see more of a jump in gaming.
Score
0
September 29, 2010 4:08:13 AM

ct1615 said:
why do you want to upgrade? i assume its for gaming, what issues are you having in what games? what resolution are you gaming at? Are you running XP, Vista, Win 7?


my bad forgot to mension those items

im playing crysis (for the third time) and GTA4. both are cpu heavy game as u all know. and even my GTS250 is bottlenecked. OC from 2.8 to 3.65 gave me 10FPS increase in crysis nut not enough, and 7FPS in GTA. i use 22inch 1680 1050 res.
btw MAX FPS in crysis was 25FPS with very high, no AA, AF on my res, and 30 FPS GTA with pretty low settings..

i know its being bottlenecked by looking at temperature ( which i believe is pretty much respect to the load applied to GPU core) ( i know this is not as accurate as looking at load percentage but should be similar)
so when i play game like FEAR which doesnt require cpu power as much ( load stays around 40% during game play), with vertical sync off, my gpu temp goes to 70C with fan 100%
in crysis 60C with fan 100%
in GTA 53C with fan 100% cpu load 100% all time during game

also just by looking at how much my overclock increased my performance, i would guess that faster cpu will perform better in these titles

Win Vista ulti

Score
0
September 29, 2010 4:17:14 AM

megamanx00 said:
That 1GB of DDR2 667 could be holding you back and preventing you from going higher. It's really best to get a match set of RAM that is meant to run in Dual Channel. I would take out that 1GB stick and see if you the FSB can't be raised a bit more without it.

Anyway, yes it would be worth it to upgrade to a Q9000 (Q9450 if you can find it) and overclock it. Only the 9450 9550 and 9650 have the full 12MB of cache. The other Q9000 chips only have half that with 6MB cache. Even with the 6MB chips though many games will benefit from the extra two cores as will multitasking. It's honestly a bit difficult to justify the purchase of the 12MB chips though when you can get a newer AMD quad core and motherboard or i3 with motherboard for around the same price. Of course, if it was me I would get a Q9550, new RAM (or at least another stick that matches the 2GB you currently have), and overclock the Crap out of it



actually when i was overclocking this chip, i tried literally everything to get it go higher, (including - trying with one stick at a time, and two same stickes at a time. losening timings, overvolt up to +0.4V from 1.8. changing mutipliers. ) and NOTHING, im not lucky enough to get good chip.

i have though about going i3s or AMD quads, but i just dont feel going with AMD ( idk why haha) and some results shows, AMD quad = Intel Dual
and prices are pretty similar between intel duals and amd quads. i wish i could have waited until e6800 wolf comes out. 3.33 dual core with 12.5 muti

but since i got the whole platform, i just want to keep it simple

and i bought this p35 ds3l with a thought of upgrading to quad in future
Score
0
September 29, 2010 4:20:50 AM

Jonathern said:
Get another 2 GB Ram card of 800 MHz aswell, The rest is fine


actually when i was overclocking this chip, i tried literally everything to get it go higher, (including - trying with one stick at a time, and two same stickes at a time. losening timings, overvolt up to +0.4V from 1.8. changing mutipliers. ) and NOTHING, im not lucky enough to get good chip.
so i doubt its the ram its holding back.
i have 667 ram in other computer which is overclocked as well to 827Mhz with 2.66 ratio with FSB
Score
0
September 29, 2010 4:40:03 AM

ok im not replying to everyone about the ram so heres my reason why i think the ram is holding me back

actually when i was overclocking this chip, i tried literally everything to get it go higher, (including - trying with one stick at a time, and two same stickes at a time. losening timings, overvolt up to +0.4V from 1.8. changing mutipliers. ) and NOTHING, im not lucky enough to get good chip.
so i doubt its the ram its holding back.
i have 667 ram in other computer which is overclocked as well to 827Mhz with 2.66 ratio with FSB
Score
0
September 29, 2010 5:19:48 AM

Do you know that you meant to have the same modules 2x2 GB RAM 800 MHz for example as your using one slower than the other which is a confliction to your performance, As this is your system most will recommned another RAM card with the same specs and higher memory as games like crysis need that little bit extra, You won't know till you try
Score
0
September 29, 2010 3:56:16 PM

Jonathern said:
Do you know that you meant to have the same modules 2x2 GB RAM 800 MHz for example as your using one slower than the other which is a confliction to your performance, As this is your system most will recommned another RAM card with the same specs and higher memory as games like crysis need that little bit extra, You won't know till you try


that is tru that i wont know till i try but. im not in a position to gamble. the reason i thought its not my ram is as i said all 4 sticks are now working at same 812Mhz. 667 to 812 and 800 to 812. with same timing. +.2 V. i did memtest and its stable.

before overclocking my 4 sticks were at 667. because usually mobo sets the clock to lower ram. and i did success in overclocking 667 to 812 and 800 to 812
it is true that if i get 2x2gb 800 let say.. i might be able to tighten the timings a litle, but i dont think the ACTUAL FREQUENCY will have more headroom to go higher.
and i blieve in overclocking, CPU, FSB, RAM FREQUENCY > RAM TIMING. correct me if im wrong though..

Score
0
September 29, 2010 4:32:13 PM

Running 4 strips puts an extra burden on the northbridge, you will always get more headroom when running 2 strips as opposed to 4. (We had a P35 that would do 1066 on the RAM with 2 strips but only ~800 with 4).
Swapping out what you have for 2x 2Gb would be the best option on the RAM, and if you get modules capable of 1066-1200Mhz you are more likely to achieve those speeds with 2 strips. (You then get into the argument of whether it is faster to run lower mhz with tighter timings/vice-versa.) Anyway 2 is better than 4!
I'd say if you can get a Q9000 series cheap enought then it is worthwhile, you need a quad to make GTA IV playable. I have a Q9400 and a Q9550, I would say the 12Mb cache isn't worth the money over the 6. A Q9400 should be about £90-100 on Ebay, should easily clock to 3.2-3.4Ghz and will give you a good while longer on your current setup.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 29, 2010 4:53:53 PM

The processor that you are getting is a top line LGA775, no doubt about that it is a great CPU. But almost as costly as an i5 750. If you look towards AMD you may find some good solutions.
Score
0
September 29, 2010 8:56:13 PM

MMclachlan said:
Running 4 strips puts an extra burden on the northbridge, you will always get more headroom when running 2 strips as opposed to 4. (We had a P35 that would do 1066 on the RAM with 2 strips but only ~800 with 4).
Swapping out what you have for 2x 2Gb would be the best option on the RAM, and if you get modules capable of 1066-1200Mhz you are more likely to achieve those speeds with 2 strips. (You then get into the argument of whether it is faster to run lower mhz with tighter timings/vice-versa.) Anyway 2 is better than 4!
I'd say if you can get a Q9000 series cheap enought then it is worthwhile, you need a quad to make GTA IV playable. I have a Q9400 and a Q9550, I would say the 12Mb cache isn't worth the money over the 6. A Q9400 should be about £90-100 on Ebay, should easily clock to 3.2-3.4Ghz and will give you a good while longer on your current setup.


i think u have not read all the replies. when i was overclocking, i did try with one stick at a time, 2 sticks at a time( same speed ) and 4 sticks all together. and results are all SAME. two sticks of 800 will get same 812mhz, or 3.65Ghz with same vcore. if i lower vcore, it isnt stable. same with 667 sticks.

i read most reviews on newegg, that many people got this chip at 4.0 with 1.35 V ish. but mine is at 3.65 with 1.42V. if i want to get 4.0 out of my chip, it will suck up more than 1.5V.

so this, i think, concludes that no matter what ram i put in, makes same result.
i tried up to +0.3V on northbridge, no difference
and thank you for the good advice about L2 cache :lol: 
Score
0
September 29, 2010 9:15:50 PM

hell_storm2004 said:
The processor that you are getting is a top line LGA775, no doubt about that it is a great CPU. But almost as costly as an i5 750. If you look towards AMD you may find some good solutions.


yeah. im considering 775 quad with 6MB cache. as MMclachlan said, it might not worth more money.
my dual has 2MB. for me i think 12MB would be little overkill.

when i got this P35 mobo, i bought it because of future proof ( back then.....) it was when intel launched old e6320.... those 65nm chips.

currently q9550 is 275$ and i5 750 is 190$. i read from other sites, that 9550 is little faster than 750.
also buying whole mobo and ram would pass the price of just 9550 by quite a bit.
Score
0
September 29, 2010 9:25:49 PM

hmm
i5 750 is 190$
q9300 is 230$
q9505 is 240$
q9550 is 275$
i7 870 is 275$

GIGABYTE P55 is 120$
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
pair of DDR3 2GB is around 70$

all added up with 750 goes over p9505 by 140$. i might be able to sell old stuff. but i dont think i can get that much
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
September 29, 2010 11:30:04 PM

jhyukkang said:
...i use 22inch 1680 1050 res.
btw MAX FPS in crysis was 25FPS with very high, no AA, AF on my res
FYI, I have a Q9650 and 9800GTX+ (GTS 250 is a rebadge of 9800 GTX+... same thing). I run at 1920x1080, and Crysis is below 30fps for me on very high.

If you need some data, I could benchmark Crysis at 1680x1050 at the same settings you are using so you can get an estimate of what fps your GTS 250 + yorkie will push.
Score
0
September 30, 2010 12:13:09 AM

rwpritchett said:
FYI, I have a Q9650 and 9800GTX+ (GTS 250 is a rebadge of 9800 GTX+... same thing). I run at 1920x1080, and Crysis is below 30fps for me on very high.

If you need some data, I could benchmark Crysis at 1680x1050 at the same settings you are using so you can get an estimate of what fps your GTS 250 + yorkie will push.

that would be nice. i used first crysis (not warhead) benchmark exe. and i believe i lowered shader and texture to high from veryhigh. everything else are very high. no AA AF. 1650 1080 . and i got 25.3 on CPU. 26.8 on GPU. im looking at cpu not gpu tho.
thank you

but what size is ur GPU ram? that could have some effect in larger res
Score
0
September 30, 2010 12:15:05 AM

Quote:
i have phenom2 x4 955 black edition @ 4.00ghz with 9800gtx+ overclocked
and get roughly 20-25 fps at 1920x1080 on very high

also to run games optimally you will need the minimum of 4gb of ram and obviously a better gpu for crysis


its possible but when playing crysis, (after game loaded fully, in playing screen) my ram never got over 75% with vista. and my second pc which has only 2GB ddr2, goes up to 93% with vista
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
September 30, 2010 4:07:52 AM

OK, here is some data for you to chew on. I ran the "Benchmark_CPU.bat" Crysis benchmark DX10 x64 several times and noted the average FPS at the end of a single benchmark run. This was at a rez of 1680x1050 with everything set to "Very High Quality" and no AA.

First, assuming you were running FSB at 406MHz (you said your RAM was running at 812MHz) I OC'd my Q9650 at that bus speed and turned off two of the cores to get as close to your E6300 OC as possible.

Result:
3.65GHz x2 1680x1050 = 21.42 fps

Next, I turned on all four cores and ran the benchmark again.
Result:
3.65GHz x4 1680x1050 = 21.52 fps

Out of curiosity, I went back to stock FSB and messed with the multiplier to simulate Q9450 and Q9550 CPU's.
Result:
(Q9650) 3.00GHz x4 1680x1050 = 21.22 fps
(Q9550) 2.83GHz x4 1680x1050 = 21.12 fps
(Q9450) 2.66GHz x4 1680x1050 = 21.07 fps

Just to make sure I was reading things right, I upped my rez back up to my native 1080p at stock Q9650 speed.
Result:
3.00GHz x4 1920x1080 = 18.21 fps

Since all of the CPU speeds at the 1680x1050 pretty much got the same FPS, I believe the card is a huge bottleneck and increasing the CPU speed (or adding 2 cores) didn't really do squat. My 9800GTX+ is a 512MB card so it may be a little different if your GTS250 is 1GB, but not by much. I think you need a better video card if you want to improve your Crysis experience. The other games you play may be a different story.
Score
0
September 30, 2010 4:16:10 AM

rwpritchett said:
OK, here is some data for you to chew on. I ran the "Benchmark_CPU.bat" Crysis benchmark DX10 x64 several times and noted the average FPS at the end of a single benchmark run. This was at a rez of 1680x1050 with everything set to "Very High Quality" and no AA.

First, assuming you were running FSB at 406MHz (you said your RAM was running at 812MHz) I OC'd my Q9650 at that bus speed and turned off two of the cores to get as close to your E6300 OC as possible.

Result:
3.67GHz x2 1680x1050 = 21.52 fps

Next, I turned on all four cores and ran the benchmark again.
Result:
3.67GHz x4 1680x1050 = 21.42 fps

Out of curiosity, I went back to stock FSB and messed with the multiplier to simulate Q9450 and Q9550 CPU's.
Result:
(Q9650) 3.00GHz x4 1680x1050 = 21.22 fps
(Q9550) 2.83GHz x4 1680x1050 = 21.12 fps
(Q9450) 2.66GHz x4 1680x1050 = 21.07 fps

Just to make sure I was reading things right, I upped my rez back up to my native 1080p at stock Q9650 speed.
Result:
3.00GHz x4 1920x1080 = 18.21 fps

Since all of the CPU speeds at the 1680x1050 pretty much got the same FPS, I believe the card is a huge bottleneck and increasing the CPU speed didn't really do squat. My 9800GTX+ is a 512MB card so it may be a little different if your GTS250 is 1GB, but not by much. I think you (and I) need a better video card if you want to improve your Crysis experience.


wow thanks for all these info. i didnt really needed you to change clocks around. haha good to know
hmm it seems so that gpu is weak. but i wonder why i got so much bump when i oced my e6300 from 2.8 to 3.65.
one more thing on the setting part. i lowered texture and shader from very high to high. and got 25ish.
everyone knows gpu power in demand is really strong in crysis. so i can kind of c that its my gpu.

is crysis programed to use only two cores? that was weird that you got almost same result with 2 cores and 4 cores

also is it okay if you could do the test once more? but with DX9 this time. i dont remember which one i did. sorry. you can just use whatever clock your cpu is at right now..
Score
0

Best solution

a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
September 30, 2010 12:46:52 PM

Here's more data to show the scaling of the # of processor cores. CPU benchmark, rez = 1680x1050 no AA, 64-bit, at stock Q9650 and stock 9800GTX+ 512MB speeds.

Under DX9, the max settings on Crysis are "High" so you were probably running DX10. But here is the core scaling under DX9, all settings on "High":

DX9 3.00GHz x1 1680x1050 = 20.21 fps
DX9 3.00GHz x2 1680x1050 = 31.57 fps
DX9 3.00GHz x3 1680x1050 = 32.06 fps
DX9 3.00GHz x4 1680x1050 = 32.48 fps

And here is the data for DX10. I lowered both texture and shader to "High" while everything else was set to "Very High":

DX10 3.00GHz x1 1680x1050 = 17.66 fps
DX10 3.00GHz x2 1680x1050 = 25.05 fps
DX10 3.00GHz x3 1680x1050 = 26.76 fps
DX10 3.00GHz x4 1680x1050 = 27.14 fps

So it looks like Crysis doesn't use more than two cores, or the game at these settings is still GPU bound and throwing more CPU at it doesn't help much.
Share
September 30, 2010 3:42:49 PM

cool, thank you very much. so upgrading just to play gta4 seems little wasteful, i think. probably wait and build whole new rig
thanks everyone
Score
0
September 30, 2010 3:43:10 PM

Best answer selected by jhyukkang.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
October 1, 2010 8:51:21 PM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
Score
0
!