q6600 to a q9650 or i7 920 ?

[eastmen]

Well guys. I have a q6600@3.4ghz. I wnat to upgrade though as its dog slow with avchd rendering. I have 8 gigs of ram and a p35 mobo. Should I just upgrade my chip to a q9650 which is 3ghz stock and should clock to 4ghz and higher on air. Or should I just sell my old stuff and move to the i7 920 that should hit 3.5-3.6 stock but is faster clock for clock.

I can ost likely get $350 or so for my mobo , ram and cpu from a friend of mine. The i7 set up would set me back $600 or so. $200 for mobo , $100 for 6 gigs of ram and $280 for the cpu. I figure if I upgrade to the i7 i can easily pick up one of the 6 core chips when they come out since its said to be on the same socket.

What do you guys think ? I'm so torn.

 

[Davros]

you want to upgrade to a chip that is 20% faster ? (q9640)
not sure about the i7 depends on if your program scales with hyperthreading

 

[suryad]

I would upgrade to the i7 if I was you....

 

[homerdog]

i7!

Seriously get the i7! Bump it up to 965 clocks (including the uncore stuff) and render away!

 

[eastmen]

Thanks guys , but i'm going to blame this purchase on you guys , so if some girl is randomly trying to kill you , its my gf

 

[Davros]

uncore stuff ?

 

[homerdog]

uncore stuff ?

http://techreport.com/articles.x/16044

We discovered such a problem with our "simulated" Core i7-940 just ahead of the publication of our initial Core i7 review. Turns out that both our test configuration and Intel's reviewer's guide had overlooked an important characteristic of the Core i7: it has multiple clock domains that govern its processing cores and what Intel calls its "uncore" elements, such as the memory controller, QuickPath interconnect, and L3 cache. We had set the proper CPU core and QPI link speeds for our simulated Core i7-940, but the memory controller and "uncore" clock were incorrect—they were set to run at 3.2GHz, not the 940's default speed of 2.13GHz for both. Not only that, but unlike the "unlocked" Extreme edition, the 940's "uncore" clocks are limited to 2.13GHz and cannot go any higher (at least, not without overclocking.)

Meanwhile, we have learned to be especially wary of the many clock domains inside of new CPUs like the Core i7 and the Phenom. Those secondary clocks can make a difference in overall performance (especially the L3 cache speed), and we expect this issue to become more prominent with time. In fact, we expect Intel to vary the L3 cache, QPI, and memory controller speeds of its Nehalem-derived processors quite a bit as it tailors them for different markets. As a result, it's possible that a mobile version of the Core i7 (or whatever it's called once it gets there) simply may not perform as well as the desktop equivalent, even if the core clock speeds are identical.

 

[Davros]

interesting that link
enabling ht lowers fps

 

[neliz]

What actually surprised me is how little benefit a quad core has over a dual core most of the time.

 

[Davros]

if your a gamer clockspeed is still king

 

[green.pixel]

Maybe you should wait until i5 and appropriate boards come out.

 

[pjbliverpool]

if your a gamer clockspeed is still king

A few games are starting to take decent advantage of quads now though. GTA4 being the most obvious example. I wouldn't want to play that game on any stock dual core (in an ideal world of course, reality is i'm playing on a dual core now!)

 

[swaaye]

I think GTA4 is the only game that uses a quad core somewhat. Even SupCom doesn't do it that tangibly.

i7 seems to get gains for other reasons though. I wouldn't upgrade from a Q6600 to one though. A 3 GHz Q6600 will put up a very nice fight kinda making the whole upgrade a waste I think.