I built me a PC a while back and feel my cpu needs to be upgraded because low cache seems to be affecting my performance... I'll list my specs at the bottom. CPU's I'm considering: E8xxx series E7xxx series (mostly the E7400 or E7300) Q9xxx series (9650 or 9550) Q6600/Q6700 PC will be used mostly for gaming, video conversion (various formats to DVD). Please tell me the pros/cons to each choice... Price isn't too big of a concern because once I do this I don't "plan" to upgrade again for at least 2 years, maybe longer if I can stop feinding for the latest and greatest... I chose these processors because they have the highest multipliers and I do intend to overclock regardless of which one I buy... I guess in terms of price E7400 will be the best with it's ridiculous 10.5 multi... but if I can see significant improvements in performance over the course of another year or so by having E8xxx or quad core processors I'll drop the extra cash...and if Quad core can be a significant factor within the next year or so in terms of gaming I wouldn't mind considering the Q6xxx series either... what do you guys think??? (and please don't respond with, 'well if money doesn't matter then buy the extreme or the best Quad Core...' I need objective answers... I don't mind spending the money if it's truly worth it, but with Core i7 and newer processors coming out I don't really want to upgrade my entire system)... CURRENT SPECS: Abit IP35-E Intel E2160 @ 3.0 Ghz HD4850 radeon (ASUS) 512mb visiontek HD650 tv tuner 8Gb g-skill ddr2 800, 4-4-4-12 timing "PI" Xigmatek cooler forgot the model... maybe S2183??? Vista 64 ultimate 500Gb Western Digital SE16 HDD.
Some would disagree but at this point I wouldn't bother with anything less than a quad core. While they are clocked lower than duals at similar price points everything is moving towards utilizing more and more cores. For you it really depends how much gaming/encoding you plan on doing. Many games don't take advantage of quads so looking backwards towards already released titles a dual will perform better, looking forwards into the future games that are being now will perform better. Video editing software typically takes advantage of quads, of course it's application by application. For overclocking the E8400/Q6600 are you moneymakers for price/performance. You'll also find OC threads for these chips just about every forum you go to as well.
Most of the games that play better on dual cores were designed for dual cores running at speeds less than what current quad cores run at anyway. The I7 is the fastest, but in my opinion it is not worth the money. As for overclocking, a higher multiplier will let you overclock without stressing the mainboard as much...a good thing when it comes to more modern abit boards. Also, your best bet at improving AVI to DVD conversion speed might be to get another hard drive. This will reduce disk swapping and allow a quad core to work itself to the limit.
This link shows a comparison between different cpu's. I have a amd 9750 quad and is an excellent cpu for video processing. With the quad I can convert a dvd to h264 (2-pass mode) in less than 2 hours, my intel coreduo 6300 usually takes over 3 hours to do the same job. http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/XviD-1.1.3,831.html
thanks. here's the deal, my ram is ddr2, 800... I intend to only overclock up to 400fsb... sooooo: Q9xxx: 12mb cache, 3.6 - 4.0 Ghz for around 300.00 USD... Q6xxx: 8mb cache, 3.6 - 4.0 Ghz for around 200.00 USD... E8xxx series: 6mb cache, 3.6 - 4.0 Ghz proc speed, for around 150.00-250.00 USD. E7xxx series: 3mb cache, 4.0 - 4.4 Ghz proc speed, for around 120.00 USD... ***Bottom line is, is the 200 dollar price premium worth the performance improvement I would get from 4 times more cache, especially since processor speed will be relatively similar... EDIT: not only 4 times more cache but 2 extra cores
