Dualcore 3GHz vs Quadcore 2.33GHz

[dIggl3r]

Contemplating switching system, not very rich, but wanna get rid of aging e6600 (dualcore 2.4GHz). My everyday usage consists mainly of chatting and browsing the net, but I do play games and enjoy watching HD movies, and even encoding SD and HD rips.

The games I play pretty much only use 1 core, but I guess with time, more and more will finally use the full potential of multicore processors. As for encoding, a SD rip of 640x480 of 2 hours long, dualpass x264, takes me just over 2 hours to encode. Encoding in xvid or x264 uses all cores, so that's good.

Since I'm not a rich dude, and want to be able to do *at least* what I'm doing now, and more, I'm wondering which cpu to buy. For singlecore applications, the 3GHz seems great for the buck (wouldn't have to change my mobo), but encoding wise the quadcore, even though slower on ONE core, seems a much better investment (although I would have to buy a new mobo).

Sigh... what you think guys?

[Deusxmachina]

With what you said you use it for, and it sounds like you don't feel like wasting money, I'm surprised you're even bothering. Every month you wait means another month of depreciated prices. 2.4 vs. 3.0 is meh. The quad would be better due to future-proofing if nothing else as things come to take advantage of all cores more, but, again, how far into the future is that, and how much faster and cheaper will things be then when it's actually useful?

Plus, a new motherboard is at least another $50 even on the low end. Plus, if current games can't take advantage of the quad, they'd be slower than they are now with your 2.4.

If you haven't tried overclocking that 2.4, I'd start there. Both my low-end Core2Duos (1.6 and a 1.8) OC to 2.8 without trying, and both can do at least 3.2ghz without trying much harder.

If it's your motherboard that's holding the CPU overclock back, if you'd get a new mb for the quad anyway, then I'd consider the new mb and see what the currenct CPU can OC to with it.

Honestly, though, kinda sounds like you just have "new toy" syndrome for the moment. If if works fine for what you do now, I wouldn't bother. There's also the time and potential hassle involved of putting the thing together. Up to you, of course.

[psycik]

I'd be tempted to agree. 2 hours for a video convert??? I've had one running, admittedly it was from a bluray, but it's been running 2 days so far, and has another 33 hours to go (amd 3000 single core).

My main PVR however i only a amd 3500 dual core, with an 8600gt video card. It quite happily played that original bluray last night with no problems, no fancy quad cores needed. And depending on the age of the game its probably suitable.

PVRs do tend to be smaller than a gaming rig, and video is not that stressful (as opposed to a game).

[dIggl3r]

Well, it did take me ~12 hours to encode an MPEG2 hdtv 1080i to 720p, dualpass x264. If I could shave 25% easy, I'd gladly take it.

[johnsonx42]

what mainboard do you have? most e6600's will clock to 3ghz with essentially zero effort, and up towards 3.6ghz with just a little oc skill. unless you've got a mainboard that just won't let you OC, you shouldn't replace your CPU at all.

[gEd]

cheapest and easiest option: just buy a 1tb hard disk and give up encoding

the E6600 is a pretty good chip and can almost certainly be overclocked to 3.6Ghz if you have a decent motherboard and cpu cooler.

A Q6600 would be faster and again they can be easily overclocked but they are still £150 in the UK so are not exactly cheap yet.

What mobo do you have? I'm guessing if it doesn;t take quad core cpus, it must be one of the earliest /cheapest variety.

[edit]: I'd have been first if I hadn;t wandered off to get another beer ! - good to see that others concur so closely tho :-)

[johnsonx42]

[edit]: I'd have been first if I hadn;t wandered off to get another beer ! - good to see that others concur so closely tho :-)

wandering off to get another beer is ALWAYS a valid reason for delay. well played sir!

[dIggl3r]

Got an "old" mobo:

MSI 975X Platinum PowerUp Edition (MS-7246)

I can overclock ok with it, BUT I tried this afternoon to o/c it @ 3GHZ, temps went way off. I mean, I never bothered for temps before, but when I saw (before I o/c'ed) that my idle was @ 55°C and full load @ 68°C, I checked my fan and saw it all clustered with dust! So I went to the compu store, bought an air can, cleared it all good... now I was down to 45°C idle/62°C full load, which still looks high, right? Am I really to start o/c'ing this? I'd get 55° idle and again ~70° full load @ 3GHz.

Sigh... the heatsink/fan I got is the one that came with the cpu. So now I'm to look for a new HSF right? I've been asking around, I don't know anything about this. One guy said that a 47$ HSF would do it, I was expecting a little less to tell you the truth.

[johnsonx42]

nah, you should be able to OC to 3Ghz with the stock fan. 3.0Ghz is essentially the same clock as the X6850, and as far as I know they used the same HSF with those. You just set your FSB to 333Mhz (aka 1333mhz), and you shouldn't even have to increase your vcore.

You should download CPU-Z from http://www.cpuid.org. You'll want to see what speeds everything is running at once you've done the OC; if your RAM is running out of spec you may need to mess with the ram divider in the bios.

If you do want a better HSF, you don't need to spend $47. Something like this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.as...6835200035 is well reviewed (and there are plenty of others of a similar nature for $20). It's not for extreme overclocking, but would give you lower temps when overclocked than you're seeing at stock speed now. Or it would let you hit somewhere in the 3.2-3.6ghz range with a little extra vcore (though I'm not sure OC's in that range actually would be possible with a 975 board).

nice board by the way, if a bit old. it actually will support a Core2 Quad Q6600 (or any of the original Q6600/Q6700/QX6800 Kentsfield quad-cores, but none of the newer Penryn-core chips). Just do a BIOS update first beforehand if you swap in a new CPU.

edit: or this HSF: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.as...6835150082

[Deusxmachina]

(before I o/c'ed) that my idle was @ 55°C and full load @ 68°C, I checked my fan and saw it all clustered with dust! So I went to the compu store, bought an air can, cleared it all good... now I was down to 45°C idle/62°C full load, which still looks high, right? Am I really to start o/c'ing this? I'd get 55° idle and again ~70° full load @ 3GHz.

Mine's at about 63c right now at 30% CPU. (This room is a bit warm.) The CPU fan is on low speed, though, so at more CPU and high speed I think it tends to max at load about 72c. I've had it this way pretty much since the Core2Duos first came out, and it's on 24/7 with usually no air-conditioning on in the summer, either.

A bit high? Perhaps. But people are always trying to get ridiculously low temp numbers on CPUs and video cards. "My video card is over 70c! It's going to melt!" Even though most can handle 100c+.

I just have an Arctic Freezer 7 Pro on this one, and the HTPC one has a similar one. They're both similar to the one Johnson posted. This size is generally around $20. Sometimes $2 after rebate if you can catch a deal. To get much better probably requires a $40+ big one and a more powerful fan. So, if you're worried about temps, pay the extra and get a big and likely louder one. Make sure it will fit in the case.

You were about to replace that CPU anyway, so I wouldn't worry about temps too much, though. But, let's say you play it really safe and buy a nice heatsink and overclock this one to 3ghz or so. That just saved on the cost of a new CPU, and you have a heatsink you can likely carry over to the next CPU you get, or resell it later to someone, and it helps get rid of "new toy syndrome."

edit: It's also possible you could oc to around 3gz while also undervolting the CPU. Have to play around with it and see what's stable for you.