Upgrade Q6600 or Buy New i7 920? - Page 3

LOL, I'm not playing at those resolutions. We're benchmarking to see the faster CPU, right? Nice one, though. The faster GPU will win at the higher resolution, we already know that. This is about the beatdown you'll receive when it's a CPU limited resolution to test the capabilities of both CPUs. We could always go to 640x480. lol Then I'd get a headache and vomit. I'm interested to see how your 955 will perform compared to my i7 920.

For now, only maximum settings. 8xAA all Very High and Custom Filter AA enabled in Catalyst Control Center delivering 24xAA. Crysis:

Running CPU benchmark 1
Results will depend on current system settings
Press any key to continue . . .
Running...
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 1500, Recorded Time: 44.62s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 62.22s, Average FPS: 24.11
Min FPS: 9.81 at frame 196, Max FPS: 35.36 at frame 99
Average Tri/Sec: -27346684, Tri/Frame: -1134349
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.63
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 59.79s, Average FPS: 25.09
Min FPS: 9.81 at frame 196, Max FPS: 35.36 at frame 99
Average Tri/Sec: -28358134, Tri/Frame: -1130329
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.64
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 59.62s, Average FPS: 25.16
Min FPS: 9.81 at frame 196, Max FPS: 35.36 at frame 99
Average Tri/Sec: -28409202, Tri/Frame: -1129194
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.64

Press any key to continue . . .

If I remember correctly Corsair's 750W is $20-$30 cheaper than their 850W, I'd pick that one.

And second, your system isn't really aged. Instead of getting a new platform and CPU, i'd buy an aftermarket cooler/water cooling and overclock your Q6600, the difference between 2.4GHz and ~3.2GHz on a Q6600 is probably bigger than you'd think.

You're back from the dead! I was wondering what happened to you. I got lucky with my order and didn't have any defective parts. Here is a run I did based on the first settings I mentioned. I will test again with your settings when I know what resolution you used.

This is 1024x768 on Crysis with all medium settings with no AA for a CPU limited benchmark. There is 2 CPU benches in the Crysis folder so I'll show the regular one and then the snow one.

Running CPU benchmark 1
Results will depend on current system settings
Press any key to continue . . .
Running...
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 1500, Recorded Time: 44.62s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 18.07s, Average FPS: 83.03
Min FPS: 64.70 at frame 875, Max FPS: 109.03 at frame 717
Average Tri/Sec: 55939332, Tri/Frame: 673750
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 1.07
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 15.31s, Average FPS: 98.00
Min FPS: 58.81 at frame 895, Max FPS: 122.73 at frame 354
Average Tri/Sec: 66322884, Tri/Frame: 676751
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 1.06
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 15.04s, Average FPS: 99.73
Min FPS: 58.81 at frame 895, Max FPS: 122.73 at frame 354
Average Tri/Sec: 67428232, Tri/Frame: 676118
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 1.06
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 15.25s, Average FPS: 98.37
Min FPS: 58.81 at frame 895, Max FPS: 122.73 at frame 354
Average Tri/Sec: 66486836, Tri/Frame: 675918
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 1.06
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)
==============================================================
Press any key to continue . . .


And the snow one....

Running CPU benchmark 1
Results will depend on current system settings
Press any key to continue . . .
Running...
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 1500, Recorded Time: 127.52s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 31.87s, Average FPS: 47.06
Min FPS: 17.14 at frame 471, Max FPS: 80.21 at frame 1090
Average Tri/Sec: 59307096, Tri/Frame: 1260175
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.66
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 1500, Recorded Time: 127.52s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 32.19s, Average FPS: 46.60
Min FPS: 18.46 at frame 427, Max FPS: 74.36 at frame 1092
Average Tri/Sec: 58758380, Tri/Frame: 1260935
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.66
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 32.58s, Average FPS: 46.04
Min FPS: 14.19 at frame 480, Max FPS: 78.49 at frame 1417
Average Tri/Sec: 57808612, Tri/Frame: 1255732
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.67
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 31.70s, Average FPS: 47.31
Min FPS: 14.19 at frame 480, Max FPS: 78.49 at frame 1417
Average Tri/Sec: 59472256, Tri/Frame: 1256985
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.66
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 30.02s, Average FPS: 49.96
Min FPS: 14.19 at frame 480, Max FPS: 78.61 at frame 1246
Average Tri/Sec: 62764900, Tri/Frame: 1256177
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.67
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)
==============================================================
Press any key to continue . . .

The snow is a little more demanding so the FPS are a bit lower.

I agree with you on the resolution. 1024x768 gives me headaches when I try to play on full screen on my 24" screen. Let me know the settings again that you ran on the Crysis bench. Also, I think if we stick with 4xAA on the menu in Crysis instead of through the GPU Utility.
I want to have as few variables as possible.

PS. I ran 3DMARK06 and I scored 18751, but If I tried a little more I'm sure I could break 19,000.

What is your WinRar score? I mean, when you do the benchamark? My score is 2,313MB, but it's a bit unfair because your processor uses 8 threads, and mine 4. Post your results.

I'd say the 4890 is a much better deal than the GTX 275, but the GTX 260 216 is a better deal than the 4870 1GB now.

Have you overclocked your 4890? I got some insane overclocks with the custom Sapphire editions and I'm curious how a reference design 4890 compares.

I just ran 19.5 hours of Prime95 with my CPU @ 3.6GHz with HT on. My CPU temp was ~67C-68C and core temps were 72C-74C with the AC on in my main room. I saw the WinRAR bench briefly hit just over 4000 kb/s, which I think is pretty good. 4 threads just doesn't cut it.

What CPU cooler and fan are you using? Also, what is the temp in your room with the computer?

Thanks one-shot. I think I'll be goin with the i7 set-up for a longer PC life span with max headroom to spare in todays current applications.

Does the 6GB of RAM really help or is it still overkill at the moment?

prices have dropped already and I7 920 chip is $279 and u can pick up a x58 board for $160

Toms actually did a test with an i7 and 3GB, 6GB and 12GB using software that most people would use. Look around on the articles and read through it. 3GB may be fine for most people now, but I feel 6GB is baseline for a high end system.

hi
my opinion is
buy corei7 now! and save some money for new Radeon when it comes (october 2009) then you will see the real performance of core i7
these days cpu is not important only bandwich, and when October comes you will feed the hungry beast
do it man!

Having a warm ambient temperature will definitely raise the temperature of the CPU. My temp is around ~20C and that keeps my CPU cool. SpeedFAN reports my CPU temp to be 33C right now. That's an i7 @ 3.6GHz with HT on with 1.3Vcore.

This thread will never die! A larger HDD is only a few dollars more than an 80GB. I'm not sure why you chose an 80GB model. Also, the onboard audio is fine for most people. The stock OEM HSF is fine because you don't seem like you would need to overclock. I have a Xigmatek HDT-S1283 with a high speed fan which keeps my CPU full load temp with my i7 920 @ 3.6GHz with HT under 70C. The cores are 5C higher than the CPU temp. The 4670 is not too bad. It would be interesting to see you put 3 of them on your motherboard. That would look pretty cool.

Oh... my... god... lol

Why are you people still posting in this thread? The dilemma from my OP has been over and done with for like 2 months! lol

I swear that a day or two ago a moderator officially closed this thread, but then he reopened it a few hours later! lol

lol
Replace all instances of "it" in that sentence with "her" and have yourself a sexist chuckle.

I apologize in advance...

I know it may seem a little late in the threads to post this one is long dead but for anyone still reading and wondering about the advan vs disadvan of switching from a q6600 to the new core I7 model chips..............I really think that unless you have a retail (dell,gateway,hp, to name a few) then yes an I7 upgrade would be great! I currently have a 2 year old now, custom Q6600 go step build.

Q6600 G0 step ac@3.15 load 39*
CM V8 Air cooling
MSI P6N-Diamond (a good board but will only work under certain fsb settings)
64 gb PQI SSD
750 GB barracuda .12 ver
PNY 8800gt (runs 75 degrees contsantly)
CM Pantheon case
530 watt antec psu

So those of you still thinking of making the switch think twice. currently the best home built Core I7 920 barebones is about $800.00 Instead of spending that kind of money and more to fill out the system i decided to do a couple of upgrades to my aging q6600, first i dumped the Cooler Master Hyper TX 20 that i used on the psu in lewd of the Cm V8 50 of Fry's online (temps dropped from 52 load to 39) I then bought a new set of ram(from 2gb ocz800-4gb corsair dom 64 at Fry's) then decided my main OS Hdd drive was really holding the system back so I upgraded to the PQI 64 gb SSD drive (S525) 115 off ebay
I then threw myself into over clocking the ram and proc as much as possible and using new write techniques for over coming notoriously slow writes of SSD, I spread the Read parts or windows onto the ssd while write intensive tasks were shot over to the 720.0.12 barracuda 55 off newegg.com i think my total expenditure was in the region of about around 270 including some fans and controllers so my total 270.00 I spent totaled my about 30 -80+ percent increase in performance really doesn't entice me until the 32 nm come into consumer pricing

Yeah and the enterprise and Piccard to show us the really cool stuff....Hrd's are still in trial faze or so i have hear and even when the do go mainstream ssd tech will have caught anything hrd models will have in 5 years, that's having faith that the HRD tech is even in a non blueprint hypothetical form to stall SSD switchover, from traditional HDD I think i will stick with ssd and watch as the prices really plummet what with new sanya and hynix chip plants improving there silicon transistor compression and 32gb sd cards riding the market at 30 dollar price ranges ssd will have only room to improve.

Can someone fill me in on what HRD's are please?

I'm talking about about a 64gb PQI S525 SSD hd. I bought the drive for a steal off ebay and have halved the load times of my most used programs, and out sourcing my write and rewrite files to the 7200.12 gives me unparalleled performance for a bargain 115 for the ssd price

I upgraded from a Q6600 @ 3.0 to a i7 920 @ 3.8. There is no comparison in performance - the Core i7 is a beast. Unless you're an incredibly cheap bastard you should upgrade

DodgeDart

My friend and I both have Q6600's. He just had a Gigabyte MB RMA. He was considering the i7 but decided to hold off. I picked him up a SilenX iXtrema IXC-120HA2 for $33 on sale at Micro Center (usually $53 or so) and installed it last night. From FrostyTech's HSF Comparisons it was a good deal, I like my Ximatek HDT-S1283 better (great deal on NE right now) but he wanted it right away. He can overclock for now and then get a 32nm Intel in a year or year and a half and turn the Q6600 into a 2nd test machine or media PC. I was also planning to use it for either of those purposes or both, who knows. Since we both use VMWare (him more) going with an i7 would be more beneficial, but I'd still rather wait and make a bigger jump. If I had the cash I'd still wait for the 32nm but also would get one or two very fast SSD ( read up and do what tnorene was talking about with his SSD's and regular HD's).

But each to his own.

Yes, and no to both those questions. The Q6600 machine that I replaced was put together without much thought or effort, so the upgrade seemed bigger than it probably should have felt. In terms of a noticable increase in the speed of daily activities, it comes up a little shorter than I would have liked. Don't get me wrong, though; the i7 is noticably faster, but I upgraded to the Q6600 from a Pentium 4 and the differences then were 1000x more noticable (obviously).

It was worth the money because now I have the ability to overclock, the option to SLI, and because I have further upgrade options in the future. I guess it really depends on what you've got right now and how much money you can afford to blow on a new computer. I think for most people, the LGA 1156 i5's and i7's are what you want to be looking at. If they had existed when I built my new computer I would have designed it around that socket, but of course that was many months ago.