Which CPU to fit the rest?

soopersonic · **Which CPU to fit the rest? -** 03-05-2008, 16:39 | posts: 3,416

Hi again everyone,

i'm currently planning my next computer and I've already decided on the video card: It will be NVIDIA's 8800GTS because I like the amount of bang for the buck and don't want to build a high end machine.

My question to you guys: Which Intel CPU would fit that video card's power? Would you go Dual or Quad Core? What about the difference between 45nm and 65nm? I really want that computer to be energy-saving - but not if I lose much performance or money.

Thanks for you ideas!

Smellybumlove · 03-05-2008, 16:55 | posts: 596 | Location: taichung/london

if you want a energy saving all out peak poerformance there is only 1 choice:

E8400

its a 45nm cpu, that means its smaller and requires less volts than a 65nm.

soopersonic · 03-05-2008, 19:35 | posts: 3,416

So what about the advantage of a Core 2 Quad CPU? And does the performance of the E8400 fit those of the video card mentioned?

bLinkZor · 03-05-2008, 19:48 | posts: 1,311 | Location: Las Vegas, NV

C2Q are faster then dual cores but they haven't made the 45nm version of that yet, it will be out soon: the Q9450 if I'm mistaken correct me, but in future applications will be taking advantage of the C2Q. The E8400; you can overclock that thing like a BEAST!!! but if you're not into overclocking its already at 3.0GHz and thats good IMO.

soopersonic · 03-05-2008, 20:24 | posts: 3,416

So what about the comparison between the 8800 GTS and the E8400? I don't want my computer to have a bottleneck as I wasn't happy when I bought my current system because the video card is somehow the bottleneck in it.

Smellybumlove · 03-06-2008, 04:37 | posts: 596 | Location: taichung/london

the new quads are certainly NOT faster, i have a bunch of those here and can tell you they offer almost nothing over a q6600 besides less power requirements and less heat.

i would go on about the advantages and disadvantages of quads, but its been done to death.

if you want something that doesnt waste electricity and is fast get a E8400.

my spec has a E8500 overclocked to over 4ghz and a 8800gts 512mb, there is no bottlenack anywhere in my setup, nigh on 15k 3dmark06 score in vista.

Passion Fruit · 03-06-2008, 14:59 | posts: 5,829 | Location: Middlesbrough, England

Quote:

Originally Posted by soopersonic

So what about the comparison between the 8800 GTS and the E8400? I don't want my computer to have a bottleneck as I wasn't happy when I bought my current system because the video card is somehow the bottleneck in it.

You'd be bottlenecking that card in anything lower than an E6600 (if you didnt overlock the hell out of them), but nobody buys them these days anymore anyway... not anyone thats not into gaming on a budget anyway.

Its practically impossible to bottleneck your card if you go for the latest CPU's... Q6600 or E8400 id also reccomend.

As has been said... the later quad cores offer nothing over the Q6600 apart from powersaving. If you overclock a Q6600 to 3.0ghz it kills the QX9650 in benchmarks, so thats saying something.

If you're going quad core (future proof)... buy the Q6600... if not and you want to go dual core then the E8400 is your friend.

roguesn1per · 03-06-2008, 15:08 | posts: 9,514 | Location: Aussie Perth WA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smellybumlove

the new quads are certainly NOT faster, i have a bunch of those here and can tell you they offer almost nothing over a q6600 besides less power requirements and less heat.

i would go on about the advantages and disadvantages of quads, but its been done to death.

if you want something that doesnt waste electricity and is fast get a E8400.

my spec has a E8500 overclocked to over 4ghz and a 8800gts 512mb, there is no bottlenack anywhere in my setup, nigh on 15k 3dmark06 score in vista.

They offer alot over a q6600.

the main thing is you can overclock the q9xxx to 4.5 ghz and sometimes more..(with correct mb and ram)

Passion Fruit · 03-06-2008, 15:23 | posts: 5,829 | Location: Middlesbrough, England

Quote:

Originally Posted by roguesn1per

They offer alot over a q6600.

the main thing is you can overclock the q9xxx to 4.5 ghz and sometimes more..(with correct mb and ram)

Well apart from powersaving, the only advantage of the Q9xxx is 5% increase in clock for clock performance, which is abysmal.

roguesn1per · 03-06-2008, 15:25 | posts: 9,514 | Location: Aussie Perth WA

the thing is the q6600 cant keep up clock for clock after around 3.7...

becuase it require watercooling...when the q9xxx can keep on going on air.

Passion Fruit · 03-06-2008, 15:29 | posts: 5,829 | Location: Middlesbrough, England

Yeah you're right, and id probably agree with you if overclocking was his main objective, infact if it was someone who was a die hard overclocker id support your argument, but he doesnt seem to be into overclocking too much, so in his case anything more than a Q6600 (or 8400) would be a waste of money for him when a mild overclock on a Q6600 would beat a stock Q9650 at stock settings. Id say that was excellent bang for the buck.

roguesn1per · 03-06-2008, 15:32 | posts: 9,514 | Location: Aussie Perth WA

yes i guess..

it also begins with...if he video edits or uses "maya"

if not...quad isnt the thing for him,

Passion Fruit · 03-06-2008, 15:43 | posts: 5,829 | Location: Middlesbrough, England

Aye.

If he's future proofing then the Q6600 is still in contention.

But an E8400 would suit his needs perfectly.

It doesnt look like he upgrades too much though so maybe a Quad would benefit him maybe a couple of years down the line if he choose to get one now.

soopersonic · 03-07-2008, 07:52 | posts: 3,416

Thanks for your discussion guys!

You're right - I'm neither a die-hard overclocker nor do I upgrade my setup regularily. I will keep your points and suggestions in mind and decide on either the Q6600 or the E8400 when I know more about my budget.
Thanks for your help!

UnclePappi · 03-07-2008, 08:01 | posts: 5,075 | Location: Toledo, Oh

you think the 8800gts is not high end?

soopersonic · 03-07-2008, 08:06 | posts: 3,416

Too ways to look at it:
Yes, it's high end, because it still is NVIDIA's flagship.
No, it's not high end, because it's 4 months old.

Passion Fruit · 03-07-2008, 17:59 | posts: 5,829 | Location: Middlesbrough, England

Quote:

Originally Posted by soopersonic

Thanks for your discussion guys!

You're right - I'm neither a die-hard overclocker nor do I upgrade my setup regularily. I will keep your points and suggestions in mind and decide on either the Q6600 or the E8400 when I know more about my budget.
Thanks for your help!

In that case id reccommend the quad... you wont get full use out of it just yet but two years down the line when games and apps etc are optimised, you'll see the benefit as opposed to having a dual core when that time arrives.

Smellybumlove · 03-07-2008, 18:44 | posts: 596 | Location: taichung/london

Quote:

Originally Posted by roguesn1per

They offer alot over a q6600.

the main thing is you can overclock the q9xxx to 4.5 ghz and sometimes more..(with correct mb and ram)

ive had 5 q9450s and i havent got them over 3.8

roguesn1per · *Last edited by roguesn1per; 03-08-2008 at 03:37.*

Are you serious???

jeez...i might look more into that... :S

actually how do u have 5 q9450s???

Ther not out.

QX9650 ive seen 2 guys that got 6 ghz on extreme cooling
Q9550 ive seen 3.8 ghz, but thats only with 1.31 volts...

i guess the q9450 is limted by its very low Multi therefore low overclocks.
Low multi also kick in some motherboards FSB straps.

PredatorX64 · **Memory**: PC6400 2GB Kit 4-4-4-12 1

For me E8XXX & 2GB Memory enough for Gaming spend your rest of money at VGA.

Make SLI Combination.

Don't Forget to get P35 or newer board for better support 45nm.

Quad Core will effective for people that use most of their pc for Rendering.

Joey · 03-08-2008, 18:38 | posts: 4,183 | Location: Cambridge, England

How much faster is a single core (stock speed) of the Q6600 to a P4 like soopersonic's, or my present 3.2GHz P4?
Because my new system (in specs

) is currently in the post and I'm wondering what kind of improvement there will be even if the software only uses a single core.

PredatorX64 · **Memory**: PC6400 2GB Kit 4-4-4-12 1

Check this out, Test using cinebench 9.5

Processor : Intel Core 2 Duo E6300
MHz : 1860
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : Windows XP Professional SP2

Rendering (Single CPU): 311 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 569 CB-CPU

While below

Processor : Pentium4 2.6C @ 3.25Ghz
MHz : 3250
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : Windows XP Professional SP2

Rendering (Single CPU): 316 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 361 CB-CPU

From that simple test result you can see that even with only single core running, core 2 duo processor will have better performance then Pentium 4.

If you compare Q6600 (run only single core) with Pentium 4 3.2Ghz Then you will know the result.

Joey · 03-08-2008, 21:08 | posts: 4,183 | Location: Cambridge, England

Ok. So a 1.8GHz C2D is about the same performance as a 3.2GHz P4.

So...... {{{sums working}}} a 2.4Ghz C2D is a 43% clock increase over that 1.8GHz so..... does mean there's a 43% core vs. core (P4 vs. C2) performance difference?

With the memory and FSB increases I would get a 50% performance improvement on single threaded applications? 1080p videos top out my currently system and stutter so that would go from 100% on my current system to 66%... on a single core.... on my new system.

That's pretty good then... I'm happy with that.

PredatorX64 · **Memory**: PC6400 2GB Kit 4-4-4-12 1

Performance increase also depend on other hardware that you use like Mainboard , Memory. But overall you should got better performance when you use Q6600 2.4Ghz Single Core compare to Pentium 4 3.2Ghz because you also got bigger FSB & L2 Cache.

yashiro81 · 03-09-2008, 17:21 | posts: 95 | Location: Canada

If you have a e6700/e6750 maybe going for a q9450 with same overclocking specs in mind isn't too bad. The only reason I'll get q9450 is because I can run it at 3.4 ghz (same speed as my e6700). It's supposed to consume less power therefore it's cooler than q6600. I'm satisfied w/3.4 ghz on air.