Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Supposed Intel i7-3770K vs. i7-4770K Benchmarks Leaked

Last response: in News comments
Share
April 26, 2013 7:49:23 AM

"Coolaler also mentioned that, while Haswell will be very nice for overclocking, it still suffers from the same temperature problems that Ivy Bridge does, although perhaps not to as great an extent"
This was an over-baked Ivy issue anyway. As a 2600k and 3770k user I never found 3770k to be wildly hotter at all. Clock for clock, yes, it is a bit warmer - few degrees C. Something to worry about or a reason to avoid as some did, not at all. Is the chip "suffering"? That is just clown stuff.
Score
2
April 26, 2013 7:49:45 AM

meh, still not a big jump from sandy bridge.
Score
28
Related resources
April 26, 2013 8:06:31 AM

so an 8-10% increase in performance? not good, not bad, about what i expected. but these are 4 benchmarks only, and i'm guessing the 4770k used was an engineering sample? what i really want to see is how well they OC.
Score
5
April 26, 2013 8:07:25 AM

I upgraded from Phenom II X4 955 to i7 3770K in June last year. One of the best purchases I have made, next to my Crucial M4 SSD.
The performance jump was unbelievable. It also draws much less power and runs cooler. The phenom bottlenecked my gtx670 even when overclocked to 4ghz.
Score
2
April 26, 2013 8:10:03 AM

I'm actually most interested in something that utilizes AVX2. I have high hopes that x264 can incorporate them and have gains well in excess of 10%.
Score
2
April 26, 2013 8:13:37 AM

darkchazz said:
I upgraded from Phenom II X4 955 to i7 3770K in June last year. One of the best purchases I have made, next to my Crucial M4 SSD.
The performance jump was unbelievable. It also draws much less power and runs cooler. The phenom bottlenecked my gtx670 even when overclocked to 4ghz.


hmm...that's weird, the gtx 670 didn't bottleneck my phenom ii x4 955 much at all really, not noticeably so. i was playing bf3 ultra at 1080p with no real lag at all. don't remember the fps exactly, but it rarely dipped into the 30s if i remember correctly.
Score
-6
April 26, 2013 8:25:44 AM

yay... for 5-10% speed gains... zzzz
Score
12
a b à CPUs
April 26, 2013 8:42:45 AM

So these gains are from architectural changes or updated optimization coding that Intell pumps into these benchmark softwares?
Score
3
a b à CPUs
April 26, 2013 8:52:39 AM

well, since SB the TIC-TOC strategy was forgot :)  since SB we have TIC-TIC. The only thing that we forget is that intel cand aford this, they are far ahead...
Score
-1
April 26, 2013 9:10:30 AM

Still no reason to upgrade from my 2500k, I think I'll just wait for DDR4 systems.
Score
5
April 26, 2013 9:16:40 AM

A 5-10% bump that will cost you a new chip and mobo. That is some expensive 10% gains.
Score
3
April 26, 2013 9:17:23 AM

I would be interested in what were clock speeds using this benchmarks. There is no mention of that in article.
I have hard time believing that CPUMark99 scores were achieved on stock speeds. A bit of searching across forum boards show scores below 600 and scores themselves correlate to CPU speeds. This is for both AMD and Intel processors. Here is one for reference: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2057154
Jump to 10% is quite significant when it runs non-optimized code for specific processor. This is due to simple fact that instructions on CPU cannot be executed faster than they already execute, unless you apply speed factor of clock speed. And since CPUMark99 is single threaded benchmark, clock speed plays important role.
Score
0
April 26, 2013 9:32:18 AM

For me 6x SATA 6Gb native ports on 8 series motherboards would be good reason to upgrade.
Score
0
April 26, 2013 9:58:14 AM

A 5-10% bump that will cost you a new chip and mobo. That is some expensive 10% gains.
Score
1
a b à CPUs
April 26, 2013 10:25:52 AM

BigMack70 said:
At this rate it's gonna be like 5 years before OC Sandy Bridge users have a reason to upgrade.


Just keep in mind that Intel is not looking at improving raw performance right now. Their largest competitor is not AMD, but the hordes of ARM manufacturers who are looking to break into the desktop and laptop space over the next few years. While the chip wattage is up a little bit this generation, the platform wattage is down, way down. The wattage increase is due to better IGP and integrated voltage regulation. These are useless improvements for desktop users, but it means a lot to laptop/netbook/tablet/AIO/server manufacturers where power usage vs performance is one of the largest considerations when choosing a chip.
Broadwell will take this to the next level by integrating more and more stuff on the chip. Eventually Intel will move the chipsets themselves onto the CPU so that you essentially have an SOC solution to properly fight against ARM. Once they get to that point then we will see a move back to improved raw performance again.

Until then I will enjoy my SB i7 and just throw money at the GPU as needed.
Score
2
a b à CPUs
April 26, 2013 10:44:23 AM

If steamroller takes on Sandy Bridge performance, there's a top chance AMD catch up with Intel.
Score
2
April 26, 2013 10:46:00 AM

I'll wait for 9770k before my next upgrade.
Score
1
April 26, 2013 10:49:32 AM

The point of Haswell is the power savings for mobile devices. At the moment I'm waiting for that instead of a simple performance boost for my next laptop.
Score
3
April 26, 2013 11:00:52 AM

This could be the time to upgrade. I think it would be a nice improvement over my Athlon 64 FX-60 :D 
Score
2
a c 117 à CPUs
April 26, 2013 11:14:11 AM

BigMack70 said:
gogogogogogogo AMD
I'm tired of Intel getting away with this lazy junk

If AMD had a rabbit they could pull out of their hat, they would/should have done so already.

The cold reality is that single-threaded performance has pretty much reached as high as it is going to go so improvements there will remain pretty slow. With very few mainstream applications making reasonable use of more than two cores, there is very little demand for more than that so do not expect a desktop core-count race any time soon either.

Expect the number of people upgrading their PCs only every 5-7 years to increase - provided they do not fail first or get prematurely replaced due to degraded performance from push-pin HSF no longer making adequate contact.
Score
4
April 26, 2013 11:36:04 AM

I'm going to wait until I see what these things overclock like.
Score
0
April 26, 2013 11:44:32 AM

The point of Haswell is the power savings for mobile devices. At the moment I'm waiting for that instead of a simple performance boost for my next laptop.
Score
0
April 26, 2013 11:50:35 AM

Wow, 10% improvement? I used to upgrade when I could get twice the performance for the same amount of money, so now it's gonna be like 2024?
Score
1
a b à CPUs
April 26, 2013 11:59:13 AM

This is actually sort of impressive. I mean that Cinebench score jumped a pretty decent amount. I'd say, if the performance gains are 10% across the board then the 4770k is a winner.
I know I know, I have a 3570k and I don't want the 4670k to be much faster than mine just so I won't have to spend more money on an upgrade or have a CPU that performs below par. But you can't denie that 10% is a rather good improvement. If it was more like 5% then yeah, who cares, but 10% is rather impressive considering they are already some powerful CPU's.
And as far as Synthetic's like SiSoft Sandra, the 4770k dominates, but I hate synthetic's anyways. I'm far more concerned with real world benchmarks like Cinebench. Of course it'd be nice If my 3570k had great synthetic's too but I really don't think that matters at all. I'd really like to see some game testing because that's what I do and that's what I care about. High Cinebench scores are fun too but gaming is where it's at.
I just think some of you need to start realizing that 10% is a nice gain. Not something to laugh at. AMD got a 15% out of the 8350 but had to raise the clocks to 4.0Ghz, 4.2Ghz if you include Turbo Boost. Intel got 10% more real world and crazy Synthetic's just from IPC, pretty impressive.
Score
-1
April 26, 2013 12:00:37 PM

Can't wait for the benchmarks with the integrated graphics. They still won't touch a GTX 690 or AMD 7990 but it'll be interesting to see what Haswell's integrated graphics is on par with.
Score
0
a c 117 à CPUs
April 26, 2013 12:26:53 PM

killerclick said:
Wow, 10% improvement? I used to upgrade when I could get twice the performance for the same amount of money, so now it's gonna be like 2024?

At 10%/year compounded, doubling would take ~7.3 years.

I do not like bothering with upgrades that less than double performance over whatever I currently own so I will probably end up keeping my current PC until 2020 unless it breaks down first.
Score
1
a b à CPUs
April 26, 2013 12:30:34 PM

"While the benchmarks aren't necessarily reliable, based on the rumors regarding Haswell's performance, they do not seem out of line. It remains a leak though, so do take it all with a grain of salt."

What, so the Tom's preview article was just a rumor?
Score
1
April 26, 2013 12:51:26 PM

Could it be Moore's Law is finally dead??

Longing for the days when AMD used to crack the whip on Intel and each generation of chip made a considerable leap in performance.

The lack of improvement is probably due to Intel R&D focusing on architectural changes allowing the GPU to operate properly and reducing power consumption.
Score
-1
April 26, 2013 2:14:19 PM

InvalidError said:
killerclick said:
Wow, 10% improvement? I used to upgrade when I could get twice the performance for the same amount of money, so now it's gonna be like 2024?

At 10%/year compounded, doubling would take ~7.3 years.


My bad. Still, by 2020 most people will probably completely switch to smartphones which can wirelessly connect to nearby displays and inputs. Even now top smartphones have the gaming performance of decent PCs from 2004 maybe, so I can see them giving 60% buck-for-buck performance of PCs in 2020, given how slowly desktop parts are being improved.
Score
1
April 26, 2013 4:17:30 PM

So... cell phones ruined the gains of the PC world. Mobile technology is just where the money is. We cant blame consoles when it is Intel pushing towards mobilization.
Score
3
a c 117 à CPUs
April 26, 2013 7:16:46 PM

loops said:
A 5-10% bump that will cost you a new chip and mobo. That is some expensive 10% gains.

Nobody is forcing you to upgrade every year. Considering how relatively flat performance increases have been for the past six or so years, most people are going to shift from 2-3 years refresh cycles to 4-5 years, which means skipping 4-5 chip and 2-3 socket generations on the Intel side of things.

Personally, anything less than a ~100% performance increase is not worth the trouble and at ~10%/year, I likely won't need a new PC within the next 7 years CPU-wise. Most likely, I will end up upgrading due to needing more RAM.
Score
1
April 26, 2013 7:49:05 PM

Intel seriously need to bridge the gap between the i3 vs the i5. the high clocked i3 doesnt even sell since the i5 turbo on dual core faster than any i3.
Score
0
April 26, 2013 7:51:18 PM

Even if its only 10% for both single and multi threads, its power consumption and oc that will show if this cpu shines. Phones and tablets wont take over... for ages, just look at the graphics of the ipad4 or any tablet - without memory bandwidth for the gpu your screwed graphics wise. Sure photos and the web look good with the res, but that's it. Games don't look anywhere near as good as they did on 2004 pc's... not even close
Score
0
April 26, 2013 9:09:39 PM

So basically....no difference.
Score
0
April 27, 2013 12:46:57 AM

Yes never mind that Chris A. did a 4770K preview about a month ago.
Do you news people even read your own site?
Not even bothering responding to the comments.
There's no reason for AMD fans to upgrade their Phenom II BEs either.
Score
0
April 27, 2013 6:26:41 AM

Where are the 2011 socket comparisons on tom's?
Score
0
a c 117 à CPUs
April 27, 2013 7:17:26 AM

natoco said:
Phones and tablets wont take over... for ages, just look at the graphics of the ipad4 or any tablet

How many people would actually do any serious gaming on a tablet even if tablets had a HD9990 GPU in 'em? I have played a few action games with on-screen virtual controls and the way thumbs tend to stick to the screen as you try to use virtual analog controls make the things only marginally playable. Even if that problem got fixed, having a significant part of the screen blocked by fingers would still annoy the heck out of me.

Since the tablet form factor is not particularly desirable for most types of "high-end" PC-style games and battery life is usually a far greater concern than gaming, I see no reason to worry about the lack of super-powerful GPUs in tablets in the foreseeable future.
Score
1
April 27, 2013 12:45:29 PM

At this point it looks like Intel is just improving the gpu onboard. This sucks for power users. I want a faster CPU and don't even care if you give me a gpu on it. I wish they would sell 2 chips. One with the gpu and one without but with more cpu power. How much space does the gpu take? Could you put an extra 2 cores on with no gpu and charge the same for the people that have no interest in a gpu? Oh well, I waited out ivy, and maybe I'll now wait out haswell. I looks like it will take a 14nm chip to make me stop yawning. I really wish AMD would start making some money so they could get back in this race.
STOP giving away free games AMD and charge more for the gpus. Your cpu's just keep tallying up Billion dollar losses. Either put your company up for sale (so a company with billions can buy you debt free and put some serious R&D behind you) or start charging more and quit giving away free stuff that steals directly from your bottom line.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2013 6:58:52 PM


Think is already been stated a few times, 5-10% gain from 3xxx to 4xxx cpus.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 28, 2013 4:51:07 AM

Good, no reason for me to upgrade my i5 760 then
Score
0
April 29, 2013 2:43:17 PM

somebodyspecial said:
At this point it looks like Intel is just improving the gpu onboard. This sucks for power users. I want a faster CPU and don't even care if you give me a gpu on it. I wish they would sell 2 chips. One with the gpu and one without but with more cpu power. How much space does the gpu take? Could you put an extra 2 cores on with no gpu and charge the same for the people that have no interest in a gpu? Oh well, I waited out ivy, and maybe I'll now wait out haswell. I looks like it will take a 14nm chip to make me stop yawning. I really wish AMD would start making some money so they could get back in this race.
STOP giving away free games AMD and charge more for the gpus. Your cpu's just keep tallying up Billion dollar losses. Either put your company up for sale (so a company with billions can buy you debt free and put some serious R&D behind you) or start charging more and quit giving away free stuff that steals directly from your bottom line.


You act like AMD started handing out games with their cards on a whim, no. Its because their GPU sales have been lacking compared to Nvidia's, even though the do have the fastest, not stupidly priced (a.k.a Titan) card out on the market right now. They have done the bundle sales to try and drive sales that have been going to Nvidia, honestly I couldn't tell you if it's working, but Nvidia has been hitting them pretty hard recently, especially in the 120 to 200 dollar range where a lot of their sales come from. If you really want them to do better, stop crying about them charging too little and buy some of their products and tell your friends to buy some of their products, they need sales not some chastising words of "advice". As for putting up the company for sale, if they did that then they would lose their X86 license. Basically, unless a company lets AMD "buy them" then nothing is going to happen.
Score
0
April 30, 2013 9:13:45 AM

artk2219 said:
somebodyspecial said:
At this point it looks like Intel is just improving the gpu onboard. This sucks for power users. I want a faster CPU and don't even care if you give me a gpu on it. I wish they would sell 2 chips. One with the gpu and one without but with more cpu power. How much space does the gpu take? Could you put an extra 2 cores on with no gpu and charge the same for the people that have no interest in a gpu? Oh well, I waited out ivy, and maybe I'll now wait out haswell. I looks like it will take a 14nm chip to make me stop yawning. I really wish AMD would start making some money so they could get back in this race.
STOP giving away free games AMD and charge more for the gpus. Your cpu's just keep tallying up Billion dollar losses. Either put your company up for sale (so a company with billions can buy you debt free and put some serious R&D behind you) or start charging more and quit giving away free stuff that steals directly from your bottom line.


You act like AMD started handing out games with their cards on a whim, no. Its because their GPU sales have been lacking compared to Nvidia's, even though the do have the fastest, not stupidly priced (a.k.a Titan) card out on the market right now. They have done the bundle sales to try and drive sales that have been going to Nvidia, honestly I couldn't tell you if it's working, but Nvidia has been hitting them pretty hard recently, especially in the 120 to 200 dollar range where a lot of their sales come from. If you really want them to do better, stop crying about them charging too little and buy some of their products and tell your friends to buy some of their products, they need sales not some chastising words of "advice". As for putting up the company for sale, if they did that then they would lose their X86 license. Basically, unless a company lets AMD "buy them" then nothing is going to happen.


I own a radeon...ROFL. Jen has said he wishes they would quit cutting prices because he'd like to raise them so his stocks would go up (he's heavily invested in his own company and the war with AMD is hurting his portfolio...LOL). AMD cuts, NV has to respond. This is AMD's fault.

As for cpu's, if you're losing 1.18B/year on them maybe x86 isn't worth squat? The gpu division barely made money (under 20mil last year) but it might do better if they quit giving stuff away. NV is winning because AMD let go of 30% of their workforce which made their drivers suck for a year and still to this day in CF and enduro (see hardocp's driver articles and notebookcheck's 7970m articles). If titan was stupidly overpriced I could get one today. But they haven't been in stock for more than few minutes each time they hit again. Translation, they're stupidly cheap (not to me, but apparently to 100,000 for the first run, and I'm guessing more for each run after). I'll believe AMD has the fastest card when they get their drivers in order. Techpowerup showed that in 18 games tested 5 had negative scaling on 7990. Nobody has given this card a glowing review. Hardocp called it a TERRIBLE value. Techpowerup recommended GTX690 for single monitor and GTX680 for dual. PCPER is doing a special article on it's stuttering etc in a week and didn't recommend it either. It wasn't liked by Ryan Shrout either. Even tomshardware said their 5 gamers ALL picked GTX 690 as the clear winner. Not sure what you're reading. That card is $1000 right? But nobody likes it or the stuttering, or the results shown after using FCAT. We also know as even Tom's pointed out, the SMOOTHING driver coming soon (AKA prototype) will slow things down to get it done. Who's really faster?

I sincerely hope they quit laying off people that could have avoided this problem. They made their situation worse by going after consoles with dwindling sales (WIIU just sold 1/2, yes 1/2 of projections as Nintendo just announced their quarter...I'm not shocked, vita hasn't even hit 5mil sales, which stops devs in their tracks). So while they broke the R&D bank chasing this crap (and causing layoffs of 30% of the workforce during that chase), they ignored drivers for a GREAT product (their gpu I mean) and funding for faster cpus (thus giving up the cpu race as toms article states and everyone else too). I won't tell my friends to buy something they'll complain to me about pitching when the drivers crap out. I'll tell them buy the ones with the funding to put out a driver on or the day before your favorite AAA title comes out. I really don't want angry friends.

Like AMD or not, I'll probably by NV this time, just as my last cpu went Intel (the entire family did this, we all had AMD's before). We go with the best at the time, not who we like. I'll shed a tear if AMD dies, but I won't even blink before spending my money WISELY no matter who it is I'm giving it to these days (look at the dota 2 article, Intels beating AMD cpu's with 1/2 the cores-what kind of friend tells his friends to buy that crap?). I semi supported AMD with my Radeon 5850 purchase but it was still a great card depending on what you played and both were close no matter what, but that was before the driver meltdown and layoffs. With them laying off so many and them taking a full YEAR to catch NV with never settle drivers in Nov (which of course NV responded to with 4 months of drivers themselves for perf) I won't do that this time. I expect drivers for the next cards to suck for a year also (nobody left to write good ones, until I see mass hiring). Fixing your cards is the answer, not giving away games to stop market share bleeding. Fix enduro for notebooks, and fix the dang stuttering for desktops and runt frames while you're at it. I could go on but you get the point. I don't buy problems, I prefer buying solutions :) 

I'm a little angry they blew their wad on consoles instead of PC's. Consoles sales will be in 1/2 this gen. They won't make AMD rich. Current sales don't lie. When 66% of the money made on Apples store comes from GAMES, your consoles have a problem going forward. Worse, the android market dwarfs them now. Shield, Steambox, Ouya, Wikipad, Razer Edge etc etc are going to take consoles down this time. The coming 4K TV's won't help sell 1080p consoles either. Shield/Ouya rev yearly probably (ouya already said this) and steambox is upgradable says Gabe N. They will shoot for 4k before you know it. Consoles are dead if not out of the gate then before their 1/2 life. 4K TV's are expected to drop 30% per year. So 3yrs into consoles lives I'll buy one like many others. They won't want a console stuck at 1080p if they even live that long. If broadwell gets into a tablet/phone that's the entire x86 gaming market open to you and output via hdmi to tv. Again, can't see how anything console can survive the onslaught coming from well, everywhere. Unfortunately AMD made a mistake that they should have let IBM or someone else make.
Score
0
May 2, 2013 4:11:54 AM

This might not be a huge jump for all you Sandy And Ivy Bridge users but it should make a nice jump for me from an i7 950 and Sabertooth X58 set up.
My old man is, at the moment, using a Core 2 Duo E8500 chip with single PCI-E mobo..
I think I'll either go for Haswell or, depending on the pricing, buy an Ivy Bridge on whatever clearance the e-tailers do or possibly wait for Ivy Bridge E.
Score
0
May 11, 2013 12:32:52 AM

"I'm tired of Intel getting away with this lazy junk "
I beg your pardon? Why is Intel producing lazy junk?
If I get my latest info correct, the main competitor AMD has no desktop cpu's capable of getting even close to the performance of Intel's 3770k or 4770k.
If I'm right, besides AMD there's no other big competitor on the market.
Probably, with current technique, either Intel the roof and has to develop new techniques to produce even faster CPUs or they had to invest that much money in current technology they first need to get their investments back. After all, since there's no competitor even close to Intel, they can do this and why shouldn't they? You'd also rather earn twice your income right?
But, you can always move to AMD if you don't like the performance of Intel CPUs ;) 
Score
0
May 18, 2013 3:51:11 AM

Will Haswell be worth upgrading to from a stock i7 950? I've never been one to overclock and have always found 3 GHz to be plenty fast enough for me but now, after having run 3 Ghz since the P4 chip, I want to go up to 3.5 Ghz.. Maybe overclock if it is now simpler to do.
My dad is using a Core 2 Duo E8500. I want to buy a new machine so that he can have my i7 950 computer. Not sure whether Haswell is worth the upgrade or whether to just buy Ivy Bridge now or wait for Ivy Bridge E. I suppose I could wait another year and go Broadwell but I would like to sell off the C2D cheapish while it is still worth something to someone who needs a computer or whatever.

Didn't realise I'd already commented the above.

Still if someone would give me a decent opinion on whether or not the upgrade would be worth it. Are there any NEW benchmarks that show wether Haswell is really better than Ivy Bridge? Most of the ones I've seen show it to be pretty much meh.
Score
0
a c 117 à CPUs
May 19, 2013 12:51:34 AM

Russell Copeland said:
Still if someone would give me a decent opinion on whether or not the upgrade would be worth it. Are there any NEW benchmarks that show wether Haswell is really better than Ivy Bridge? Most of the ones I've seen show it to be pretty much meh.

Does your father's E8500 do everything he needs to do? Does your i5-750 still do what you need it to do? If both answers are 'yes' as far as all your necessary everyday uses are and most of your occasional stuff too then the answer would be no, not worth it.

As for the performance difference, only ~25% clock-for-clock unless the software uses some of the new instructions introduced along the way.
Score
0
May 19, 2013 1:31:12 AM

InvalidError said:
Russell Copeland said:
Still if someone would give me a decent opinion on whether or not the upgrade would be worth it. Are there any NEW benchmarks that show wether Haswell is really better than Ivy Bridge? Most of the ones I've seen show it to be pretty much meh.

Does your father's E8500 do everything he needs to do? Does your i5-750 still do what you need it to do? If both answers are 'yes' as far as all your necessary everyday uses are and most of your occasional stuff too then the answer would be no, not worth it.

As for the performance difference, only ~25% clock-for-clock unless the software uses some of the new instructions introduced along the way.


Not really no. The E8500 is quick to boot and do most stuff like office, email, web browsing and copying stuff to/from a tablet computer etc but my old man likes to play Microsoft Flight Sim and Train Sim as well as Kuju's Railworks and even on lower settings those games are pushing the system hard. Kuju's Railworks really needs high end stuff to play it at more than a few frames per second, which is ridiculous when the machine can still play games with much better graphics, the only explanation I can think of is how the game works with either really large picture files or because it needs to draw miles and miles of scenery.,

I want to give him my i7 950 set up as I am on the computer a LOT and so want a system that doesn't use anywhere near as much power at idle or load as the 950 chip apparently does (looked up wattage reviews) even with 1 GTX 670 my machine copes well with the Railworks game. It literally comes down to spending say £850 on a new chip, mobo, ram and cooler (which gives a decent budget for it) as Haswell or Ivy Bridge E will work with my Corsair HX 750 and I can fit a decent 2 x 120mm closed loop in my case (Haf 930). All I will need to buy as an extra is a USB 3 back plate so I can use the header on the new mobos. I'll buy a new monitor in 2015 when we've moved into our new flat and I have more space for something bigger than a 19" screen.

I have a friend or two interested in the C2D system that I can put together using an older SSD, HDD and case. One of them is still using a Pentium 2 so that explains it all.
Score
0
a c 117 à CPUs
May 19, 2013 3:55:22 PM

Russell Copeland said:
I have a friend or two interested in the C2D system that I can put together using an older SSD, HDD and case. One of them is still using a Pentium 2 so that explains it all.

Sounds like you have plenty of reasonably good reasons to be looking to shift PCs around by getting a new one for yourself to me.
Score
0
!