What cpu would you get to replace a 3ghz core 2 duo?

[blur xc]

A while back I built my first desktop computer. I think I did good w/ the parts I got at the time, but I'm stuck with the aging (so it seems) lga 775 intel socket, unless of course I get a new mobo. So, I have the aforementioned 3ghz core 2 duo, but I'm itching for a quad core processor.

The deal is the 3ghz core 2 quad is over $300, but as you sacrifice some mhz, the price drops radically. Right now Newegg has a core 2 quad 2.66ghz on sale for $150. So, how "slow" can you go on a quad core until it's no longer really a performance increase over a faster mhz dual core?

I know most apps aren't coded to run multi threads, but there are a few important ones I use that are. I dont' use Handbrake a lot, but on the dual core it takes about 40mins to rip a dvd, with both cores over 80% for the whole time it's running. I also process RAW files, Lightroom in Windows, and Bibble in Ubuntu. They are both multi threaded apps, IIRC... More cores should make raw file imports and exports faster.

Also, when I upgrade my distro- I'm for sure going 64bit, and also plan up bumping up my ram to 8 gigs...

I'm not interested in overclocking- every time I've messed w/ any of that junk in the bios, I had a computer that would fail to post.

Thanks,
BM

[Sinkingships7]

Read up a little on overclocking. Go ahead and buy that 2.6GHz C2Q. Even with stock cooling, you can easily overclock that to 3.0GHz, or even more if you want. Intel processors are thermally efficient like that.

Use 64-bit (it's the way forward), but 8GB is probably overkill. Unless you run virtual machines regularly. 4GB is a good amount.

EDIT: I see now that you're against overclocking, but if it's not a lost cause, I really urge you to read a bit on it. It's not difficult, and there's plenty of forums out there with people who will help you. It can save you a lot of money.

[renkinjutsu]

i suggest you get this

core 2 quad 2.66ghz on sale for $150
and overclock it

[Gizenshya]

I'd get a new AMD quad core. screw Intel. read the news lately?

AMD's don't overclock well, but you're not overclocking anyway. 2. They are cheap.

The c2d's overclock very well. Learn how to overclock and you'll get to 4ghz+ easily with the CPU you have now.

You can get an AMD Phenom II x4 that is faster than that core 2 quad you mentioned for the same price or less. Granted, the Intel quad will overclock more, but if you don't want that, then get the AMD. Save some money, have a better system... and you can sleep at night knowing that you're supporting an honest, ethical company.

[LowSky]

You don't need 8GB of RAM 4GB is more than enough, And that Quad isn't going to be much faster doing day to day stuff. loosing nearly half a GHz is going to be felt in day to day performance.

Personally you're spending money on a new system when the old sill works fine. FYI the slowest part in computers these days are hard drives.

[Exodist]

The deal is the 3ghz core 2 quad is over $300, but as you sacrifice some mhz, the price drops radically. Right now Newegg has a core 2 quad 2.66ghz on sale for $150. So, how "slow" can you go on a quad core until it's no longer really a performance increase over a faster mhz dual core?

This depends on the software you are using. If the software has been written for SMP then the more cores will almost always help to an extent. There is some math to calculate the speed, but feel safe to say a quad 2GHz per core chip will be faster then a dual 3Ghz per core chip. If the software has been wrote for SMP. All your other software which has not been wrote for SMP will run faster on what ever CPU has the fastest core.

Hope this helps..

Exo

[Exodist]

You don't need 8GB of RAM 4GB is more than enough, And that Quad isn't going to be much faster doing day to day stuff. loosing nearly half a GHz is going to be felt in day to day performance.

Personally you're spending money on a new system when the old sill works fine. FYI the slowest part in computers these days are hard drives.
I am going to have to agree with lowsky here.
Most systems idle all day long unless your doing heavy number crunching constant (or recompile your kernel daily) CPU is the least of your issues.

[MooPi]

I'd get a new AMD quad core. screw Intel. read the news lately?

AMD's don't overclock well, but you're not overclocking anyway.

The c2d's overclock very well. Learn how to overclock and you'll get to 4ghz+ easily with the CPU you have now.

Excuse me Gizenshya, but AMD cpu's do overclock well. I just invested in a AMD AthlonII X4 620 2.6GHz AM3 95W Quad, and it overclocked very well. I had it up to 3.6GHz before I backed it down to 3.2GHz for long term stability. I have overclocked many AMD CPU's and have never had issue. I would highly recomend the AMD AthlonII X4 620 2.6GHz AM3.
It's list price alone should help ($99) US dollars per NewEgg. I have a single core athlon 3.0GHz that is very capable for daily task but put it head to head doing video encoding and the difference comes out. My new quad rips and encodes a full movie in less time than it takes to view the movie (50 to 65 minutes). By comparison my single core would use a almost two hours. When I first completed the build I was just amazed at how fast it ripped and encoded music so well. It was so fast that I could rip and encode almost as fast as using a flash drive to transfer from archive.

[blur xc]

thanks for the input-

I do run Vbox from time to time, and mostly the reason I don't any more often than I do now is my ram limitation. I give 1.5gigs of ram to Vista in Vbox,and it runs, but not exceptionally well. If my wife is logged in on her user with some Firefox windows open (esp. w/ flash content), and I'm on my user doing my thing and I fire up Vbox my ram usage get's damn near pegged- full tilt. If I had 8 gigs of ram, I could allocate 3 or 4 gigs to vista in vbox which should make that fat pig happy, and leave plenty for happy computing in ubuntu. I only run vista because it's the only legal MS disk I had laying around. I would have much rater run XP or Win 7, but Win 7 wasn't even out yet back when I built that virtual machine. I don't want to outright pirate windows.

And right nw, AMD is out of the question. I'm not tossing my whole mobo, eps. when swapping a cpu is like a 10min job.

BM

[alphaniner]

You don't need 8GB of RAM 4GB is more than enough

Oh, but 8GB opens up so many possibilities, like running your games fully or partially "installed" to a RAMdisk.

[Exodist]

i suggest you get this
and overclock it

You want to check the serial number on the CPU before attempting to overclock. CPU makers make the chips in batches. Some batches may test to higher clock speeds, some will not. Thus you get 2.66, 2.88 and 3.0Ghz from the exact same die, just some batches fared better then others due to improvements in the refining process. CPU makers have also been known to in many cases have chips that have been tested to very high clock speeds, but are constantly sold as a lower clock to meet marketing quota. Thus you can very easily a X.xxGhz to a much higher clock speed. But you much check the batch number and compare it to others batches that have been tested to see where yours can safely stand.

Cheers,
Exo

[Exodist]

thanks for the input-

I do run Vbox from time to time, and mostly the reason I don't any more often than I do now is my ram limitation. I give 1.5gigs of ram to Vista in Vbox,and it runs, but not exceptionally well. If my wife is logged in on her user with some Firefox windows open (esp. w/ flash content), and I'm on my user doing my thing and I fire up Vbox my ram usage get's damn near pegged- full tilt. If I had 8 gigs of ram, I could allocate 3 or 4 gigs to vista in vbox which should make that fat pig happy, and leave plenty for happy computing in ubuntu. I only run vista because it's the only legal MS disk I had laying around. I would have much rater run XP or Win 7, but Win 7 wasn't even out yet back when I built that virtual machine. I don't want to outright pirate windows.

And right nw, AMD is out of the question. I'm not tossing my whole mobo, eps. when swapping a cpu is like a 10min job.

BM

I run VB also, you dont have to allocate that much lower (base) Memory for it. Thats why its not running good. 384k is more then plenty for Ubuntu or most any Linux. Most anything more the 640k is Upper Memory.

[MooPi]

I'm curious as to why you would eliminate AMD ?

[alphaniner]

Because he wants to keep his current motherboard.

[Gizenshya]

Excuse me Gizenshya, but AMD cpu's do overclock well. I just invested in a AMD AthlonII X4 620 2.6GHz AM3 95W Quad, and it overclocked very well. I had it up to 3.6GHz before I backed it down to 3.2GHz for long term stability. I have overclocked many AMD CPU's and have never had issue. I would highly recomend the AMD AthlonII X4 620 2.6GHz AM3.
It's list price alone should help ($99) US dollars per NewEgg. I have a single core athlon 3.0GHz that is very capable for daily task but put it head to head doing video encoding and the difference comes out. My new quad rips and encodes a full movie in less time than it takes to view the movie (50 to 65 minutes). By comparison my single core would use a almost two hours. When I first completed the build I was just amazed at how fast it ripped and encoded music so well. It was so fast that I could rip and encode almost as fast as using a flash drive to transfer from archive.


well then, I stand happily corrected. I hadn't heard about the phenom II's, and I assumed. Stupid on my part, but ohh well. I'm glad to hear those overclock well :)

I also forgot to post links...

performance for stock clocks...
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

for overclocked CPU's..
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/overclocked_cpus.html

If you are just going to swap out the CPU... it's pretty straight-forward. get a core 2 quad, and spend what you want for your speed.

and regarding Exodist's comment: interesting.

With the 65 nm core 2 duos I had two friends who got the same thing at the same time (identical systems). One overclocked from the 2.2 ghz or so, up to about 3. The other's overvlocked to an insane 3.6 or so if I remember correctly. Yep, he got his little cheapo $60 or whatever CPU going about as fast as my $160 CPU is currently. We reseated the heatsink and tons of stuff on the other one, but it just wouldn't get over about 3 ghz.

We eventually reduced the OC on the other one to about 3 ghz, because it would raise the ambient temperature in his dorm room about 15 degrees while he was playing games (no exaggeration, we measured it). The speed was nice at the time, but the sweating got old fast.

We never compared numbers, tough... now I'm curious...

[doas777]

I'd get an I7 personally. the nahelems look awesome

[alakazam]

2.8GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 processor with 8MB shared L3 cache; Turbo Boost dynamic performance up to 3.46GHz; Hyper-Threading for up to eight virtual cores

or

A core 2 extreme for overkill

[alphaniner]

I'd get an I7 personally. the nahelems look awesome

I thought i7's were a different socket type. Agreed on the awesome though.

[Gizenshya]

the ix line have completely different architecture, CPU and mobo.

overclocking is different as well.

the op's socket is LGA 775.

if he bought one of those, he'd have a very expensive paperweight.

[blur xc]

I run VB also, you dont have to allocate that much lower (base) Memory for it. Thats why its not running good. 384k is more then plenty for Ubuntu or most any Linux. Most anything more the 640k is Upper Memory.

Ok- I don't understand most of what you are saying, but according to my conky, with two users logged in that both have a few apps open (esp. FF w/ some flash content) I'm easily using 1gig of ram... Vista runs like crap w/ 1 gig, which is why I give it 1.5 gigs (just under half of my 3.2 gigs available) which ends up using 2.5 to 2.6 of my total 3.2 gigs.

I use cpu scaling, so for that 90% of the time we are idling or doing other non cpu intensive activities, I'm only using 2ghz (saves power, right?). Most cpu intensive apps utilize mulit cores, right?...

And yeah, hte fancy i7 is out, too spendy. I'd need to replce the ram I have now w/ ddr3 ram on top of the mobo and cpu, rathat than just swap out the cpu.

And technically speaking, wouldn't it be pirating anyway if I change my cpu but don't go out and buy a new windows disk? Gotta love the MS EULA.

Bm

[Ace1989]

I'd get a new AMD quad core. screw Intel. read the news lately?

AMD's don't overclock well, but you're not overclocking anyway. 2. They are cheap.

The c2d's overclock very well. Learn how to overclock and you'll get to 4ghz+ easily with the CPU you have now.

You can get an AMD Phenom II x4 that is faster than that core 2 quad you mentioned for the same price or less. Granted, the Intel quad will overclock more, but if you don't want that, then get the AMD. Save some money, have a better system... and you can sleep at night knowing that you're supporting an honest, ethical company.

AMDs don't perform near as well. You get what you pay for.

[alphaniner]

And technically speaking, wouldn't it be pirating anyway if I change my cpu but don't go out and buy a new windows disk? Gotta love the MS EULA.

Depends on which version you have: Retail or OEM. If you have retail, you can move it around all you want, though you may have to jump through some hoops if you don't plan correctly.

[MooPi]

AMDs don't perform near as well. You get what you pay for.
You get more bang for your buck. I don't know what you do on your Linux rig that requires something faster that a quad 3.2GHz. I'm calling FUD alert .

[blur xc]

What's l2 cache have to do w/ performance? I notice intel makes the smame 2.66ghz quad core w/ a 4mb l2 cache and a 6mb l2 cache?

I suppose I could just google that one....
answer- http://www.nordichardware.com/Reviews/?skrivelse=514


Thanks,
Bm

[LowSky]

Cache is actually how a processor loads it data before sending commands to the CPU. The more cache the less hard drive/RAM activity.

And Phenom II overclock amazingly. The highest Overclock ever was on a Phenom II, the Phenom 1st gens had issue, I will not deny that.

My Phenom II x2 550 is overclocked to 3.5 and has 2 cores unlocked. So it actually working like a Phenom II x4 955.


AMD is the price to performance king. And it helps keep Intel's pricing honest.

[Exodist]

Ok- I don't understand most of what you are saying, but according to my conky, with two users logged in that both have a few apps open (esp. FF w/ some flash content) I'm easily using 1gig of ram... Vista runs like crap w/ 1 gig, which is why I give it 1.5 gigs (just under half of my 3.2 gigs available) which ends up using 2.5 to 2.6 of my total 3.2 gigs.

I use cpu scaling, so for that 90% of the time we are idling or doing other non cpu intensive activities, I'm only using 2ghz (saves power, right?). Most cpu intensive apps utilize mulit cores, right?...

And yeah, hte fancy i7 is out, too spendy. I'd need to replce the ram I have now w/ ddr3 ram on top of the mobo and cpu, rathat than just swap out the cpu.

And technically speaking, wouldn't it be pirating anyway if I change my cpu but don't go out and buy a new windows disk? Gotta love the MS EULA.

Bm

The only option for RAM in Virtual Box is to allocate lower memory. So basicly your setting a side RAM that will not be used. Anything that is used in upper memory will be used anyway and it doesnt have options on restricting it. I recommend you used the Suggested amount it called for when setting it up.

I tried to look up some documentation on upper and lower RAM for you on wikipedia but they dont list it since its old tech. But I will try to explain again.
Back before common memory managers we use now, we had lower memory (640k or less) and upper memory (anything above 640k). So if you have 2MB of RAM total, you had 640k lower and 1408k upper memory. Some programs required x amount of lower ram to be allocated to run properly. Thus it was normal to have 2 or 3 bootable floppy disc with different memory setups on each disk for certain programs or games.

This is why its included in the virtual box and you shouldnt have to touch it. So in short terms, even if you only have 384k allocated for windows. It will still use as much of the upper memory as it needs since OS software now unifies the memory as a whole now.

----------------------------

Now as far as the CPU/License issue, didnt your CPU quit on you?? Thats what I would say.. :)

[Frak]

AMD's don't overclock well, but you're not overclocking anyway. 2. They are cheap.

AMD Phenom II overclocked to 3.7GHz with stock cooler. AMD's OC extremely well.

[Exodist]

What's l2 cache have to do w/ performance? I notice intel makes the smame 2.66ghz quad core w/ a 4mb l2 cache and a 6mb l2 cache?

I suppose I could just google that one....
answer- http://www.nordichardware.com/Reviews/?skrivelse=514


Thanks,
Bm


Cache, Cache is the maker or breaker.
Remember the Core2 Duo and the Core2 Duo Extreme? The only difference was the amount of cache. Standard Core2 had like 1 or 2 MB and the extreme had like 6 or 8MB. I forgot the exact specs. But the performance was ever more noticeable.
Same can be said for older Athlons and Sempron, same chip just with very little to no cache. Also same for older Pentiums and Celerons.
Cache is very very fast and expensive RAM thats located on the CPU. When the CPU is working data in can store it on the cache until the operation is completed. The less amount of cache the CPU has the more instructions it has to send down the buss system back to regular RAM. Thus slowing down the process.
Here is a good article on Wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPU_cache)

[alakazam]

Cache, Cache is the maker or breaker.
Remember the Core2 Duo and the Core2 Duo Extreme? The only difference was the amount of cache. Standard Core2 had like 1 or 2 MB and the extreme had like 6 or 8MB. I forgot the exact specs. But the performance was ever more noticeable.
Same can be said for older Athlons and Sempron, same chip just with very little to no cache. Also same for older Pentiums and Celerons.
Cache is very very fast and expensive RAM thats located on the CPU. When the CPU is working data in can store it on the cache until the operation is completed. The less amount of cache the CPU has the more instructions it has to send down the buss system back to regular RAM. Thus slowing down the process.
Here is a good article on Wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPU_cache)

A lot of the best core2duo procs have 6mb cache, IMO 6mb is more than enough.

[Exodist]

A lot of the best core2duo procs have 6mb cache, IMO 6mb is more than enough.
6mb is outstanding! I only wished I had that much cache on my current AMD PhenomII X2 6000+. :)

[Ace1989]

You get more bang for your buck. I don't know what you do on your Linux rig that requires something faster that a quad 3.2GHz. I'm calling FUD alert .

I use Intel on my iMac. It's better than the AMD in my bros computer, but far. Everyone knows this - are you 15?

[MooPi]

Okay give me a breakdown. Your bro's computer runs what ? And are you running Linux on your iMac ? I was 15 in the year 1976. Are you like 16? I'm sorry but that comment sent me rolling in laughter. Not trying to ruffle your feathers just made me laugh. I believe I first used a computer in college in 1982 , not certain because it has been a while. They booted from a 3.5 inch floppy to a dos prompt. Big fun, and good times.

[Frak]

I use Intel on my iMac. It's better than the AMD in my bros computer, but far. Everyone knows this - are you 15?
No.

[tom66]

I don't see what the fuss is about having a superfast computer.

Sure, it would be nice. I love my Core 2 Duo at the moment and it is the fastest processor I have ever owned, even though it's the mobile model and mostly runs underclocked at 1.2GHz (SpeedStep.)

But is it really worth all the money, just for that extra second on Super PI? Or to be able to compile a kernel 5% faster?

The biggest bottleneck today is the HDD. It is probably the slowest component in the computer that is often in use. If you want a real performance increase, buy a SSD.

There is no point discussing AMD processors, the OP doesn't want to upgrade his Intel motherboard so he's stuck with an Intel processor. I think Intel make fine processors, but I have only one AMD computer and that one is short on screws so the motherboard isn't screwed in the case properly... (hey it was free.) Long story short, it's not in use.

[blur xc]

6mb is outstanding! I only wished I had that much cache on my current AMD PhenomII X2 6000+. :)

My core 2 duo has 6mb l2 cache... hmm... So, that's why the 3ghz core 2 quad is so spendy - 12mb cache... I'm also realizing efficiency cost $$ too, as the 65w core 2 quad is even more spendy than the 95w models...

The core 2 quad is the end of the line for the lga775 socket? Once intel moves on, they don't look back, do they?

BM

[CharlesA]

While it's not exactly "on topic" but I'll throw it out thar.

I've got a machine I built probably about 9-10 months ago running a C2D, 8GB of RAM and a decent video card. The bottleneck is the hard drive for me.

I wouldn't bother upgrading the current machine, I'd just wait until I had the money to get something that was newer (i7, i5, newer AMD..)

About LGA775, it's hard to find mobos and CPUs for that socket. Everything is moving to the i7 or i5.

[Gizenshya]

My core 2 duo has 6mb l2 cache... hmm... So, that's why the 3ghz core 2 quad is so spendy - 12mb cache... I'm also realizing efficiency cost $$ too, as the 65w core 2 quad is even more spendy than the 95w models...

The core 2 quad is the end of the line for the lga775 socket? Once intel moves on, they don't look back, do they?

BM

Yep, LGA 775 is yesterday's news. They changed ton of things for the i-series, and those things will probably remain in this new format for several years with only minor changes.

So, unfortunately, the core 2 quad is your only choice to upgrade to from your core 2 duo. It's the only thing faster with your socket.

Overclocking will give you an extra 30% or more performance for free, though (hint hint hint! :D )

Tom66, about the speed... everyone has their wants and needs. blur xc has valid reasons to upgrade (not that anyone needs anyone else's approval to upgrade).

Overall ability is not always the issue. Consider my case, with gaming. Code could be written for a pentium 1 to render all the frames of my game... but it wouldn't be practical for gaming. It must be in real time, as any late data is completely useless. If it isn't at least 30 FPS, then it gets hard to effectively interact with the game in a productive way. In other words, anything below a certain speed becomes as worthless as not having a computer at all.

On some of the games today, my system struggles to maintain good framerates on high settings on some games, like Crysis. I have to disable AA on that game if I want to play. I'll probably upgrade in the next year because of new games (only real reason for me to upgrade).

True... there are the impatience and bragging aspects, but ohh well.

[Skripka]

Yep, LGA 775 is yesterday's news. They changed ton of things for the i-series, and those things will probably remain in this new format for several years with only minor changes.


It is unlikely to be that long. Intel is looking at moving the GPU onto the CPU die and off of the PCIe lanes, with Pine Trail. Although that is targeted at a mobile platform it seems to be where the world is going, Nvidia has publically questioned (http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2009/10/day-of-nvidia-chipset-reckoning-arrives.ars) "why bother" R&Ding beyond what is out now-as NVidia does not have a DMI license (http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2009/12/for-nvidia-and-intel-flash-video-is-a-two-edged-sword.ars) for making GPU hardware for Pine Trail style systems.

Odds are the Corei5/7series will not live anywhere as near long the life that LGA775 did.

[Skripka]

About LGA775, it's hard to find mobos and CPUs for that socket. Everything is moving to the i7 or i5.

I don't know where you are...but that is completely not true in the US. There are 148 different LGA775 boards as well as the whole Intel lineup of LGA775 CPUs available though NewEgg.

[Exodist]

It is unlikely to be that long. Intel is looking at moving the GPU onto the CPU die and off of the PCIe lanes, with Pine Trail. Although that is targeted at a mobile platform it seems to be where the world is going, Nvidia has publically questioned (http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2009/10/day-of-nvidia-chipset-reckoning-arrives.ars) "why bother" R&Ding beyond what is out now-as NVidia does not have a DMI license (http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2009/12/for-nvidia-and-intel-flash-video-is-a-two-edged-sword.ars) for making GPU hardware for Pine Trail style systems.

Odds are the Corei5/7series will not live anywhere as near long the life that LGA775 did.
FTC is questioning Intel on that move also saying it can corner the CPU/GPU market. Which is bad for nVidia. But really I am hoping AMD does the same with a Radeon style chipset. This is bad for nVidia either way tho.

@ The OP, What I suggest is compair what you have, to what you can get for your price limit (if you have one). Look over some bench marks, Anandtech has many benchmarks so you can feel confident that you get the best bang for the buck. IMHO if your current CPU can do something in 10 secs and the latest and greatest can do the same in 8 secs. Thats not a real upgrade or worth the money. But if X CPU can do that same process in 5 or 6 secs (or less). Then go for it if you have the cash. Its your system for you to customize to your specs. ;-)

[alphaniner]

...I have only one AMD computer and that one is short on screws so the motherboard isn't screwed in the case properly... (hey it was free.) Long story short, it's not in use.

There's a good pun in there somewhere. Go to the store and spend a pound or two.

[mickie.kext]

6mb is outstanding! I only wished I had that much cache on my current AMD PhenomII X2 6000+. :)

AMD processors are not that L2 cache-dependent because AMD has 128Kb L1 cache per core, while Intel has 64kb. L1 cache is faster and more important, so more of L1 somewhat offsets smaller amount of L2+L3 cache. Also, AMD CPUs have shorter pipeline (12 stages) than intels 14-stages. So that is another reason why cache is loss important in AMD CPUs. And third reasom, AMD has integrated memory controller while Core 2 intels use FSB to access memory.

And don't forget, Phenom IIs have 512kb per core plus 6MB of L3 shared between all cores while Core 2 has shared L2 in amounts up to 12MB (my C2Q 9650 has 12MB). The real reason why Intel is faster clock for clock on Windows is Intel compiler which is heavily used in producing proprietary Windows software. On Linux, GCC is used, so AMD Phenom II and Intel Core 2 have almost same performance on same clock rate when testing is performed on 64-bit Ubuntu.

[MooPi]

Thanks mickie for that info. I have been wondering about this for a while.Using the same benchmark software on the same hardware testing both Linux and Windows I would score better on the Linux platform. Thanks for the clarification.

[Skripka]

I'm also realizing efficiency cost $$ too, as the 65w core 2 quad is even more spendy than the 95w models...



Don't sweat the watt ratings they are only measurement of TDP, Thermal Design Power not actual electricity. All they do is clue you in to overclocking potential, and warn you about heat potential issues. Unless you're running you machine in the Caribbean without air conditioning, it really doesn't matter unless you're overclocking.

[Exodist]

Don't sweat the watt ratings they are only measurement of TDP, Thermal Design Power not actual electricity. All they do is clue you in to overclocking potential, and warn you about heat potential issues. Unless you're running you machine in the Caribbean without air conditioning, it really doesn't matter unless you're overclocking.
Very true,
My 125watt model does not overclock at all. Which is fine, I bought a 6000+, any overclocking would just have been a bonus. But with stock fan/heatsink it doesnt run hot, so all good.

[Skripka]

Very true,
My 125watt model does not overclock at all. Which is fine, I bought a 6000+, any overclocking would just have been a bonus. But with stock fan/heatsink it doesnt run hot, so all good.

Some mainboards just don't overclock, and some CPUs don't OC well either. I had an MSi K9N Neo mainboard that would only OC +10% before going unstable, tried with a AMD4200+ and a 6400+.

On my current tower with a Biostar mainboard and a Phenom II CPU...my 95W PhenomII 720x3 is running as a unlocked quad core @ +30% @ somewhere around 130-140W on air. I could go higher but I would have to buy better RAM. AMD CPUs don't like running with 4 DIMMs of memory.


If one buys AMD get the Black Edition CPUs, as they are fully unlocked, frequency multiplier, voltages, and all. To get fully unlocked Intel CPUs costs ~$900USD in the US, fully unlocked AMDs start at $150USD.

[Exodist]

Some mainboards just don't overclock, and some CPUs don't OC well either. I had an MSi K9N Neo mainboard that would only OC +10% before going unstable, tried with a AMD4200+ and a 6400+.

On my current tower with a Biostar mainboard and a Phenom II CPU...my 95W PhenomII 720x3 is running as a unlocked quad core @ +35% @ somewhere around 130-140W. I could go higher but I would have to buy better RAM. AMD CPUs don't like running with 4 DIMMs of memory.


If one buys AMD get the Black Edition CPUs, as they are fully unlocked, frequency multiplier, voltages, and all. To get fully unlocked Intel CPUs costs ~$900USD in the US, fully unlocked AMDs start at $150USD.
My Mobo is a overclockers board. Biostar TF560 A2+. But this chip just will not budge. I used to overclock everything, this is the first chip I have seen in years that will just not budge off 3013Mhz :)

[Skripka]

My Mobo is a overclockers board. Biostar TF560 A2+. But this chip just will not budge. I used to overclock everything, this is the first chip I have seen in years that will just not budge off 3013Mhz :)

The 6000 CPUs weren't black edition were they? If you're already at 125W @ default it isn't too surprising that it won't want to go much further north, especially if you can't tweak voltage, bus, and multiplier. The 6000 and 6400 were hot running CPUs too start with-I remember lots of people astounded at how hot they were...it's like "Guys, this is a 125W TDP rated CPU of course it is hot, Captain Obvious." :)

[MooPi]

My limited overclocking experience has taught me that better ram = better overclocking. Mobo preference is Asus and I always read the manual before I purchase to see the potential. I've been stuck before at a certain GHz when a change of ram gave the OC a boost to the next level.

[Gizenshya]

If one buys AMD get the Black Edition CPUs, as they are fully unlocked, frequency multiplier, voltages, and all. To get fully unlocked Intel CPUs costs ~$900USD in the US, fully unlocked AMDs start at $150USD.

wow, nice!

and MooPi, the same can be said for CPU, north bridge, etc. There is always a weakest link. I don't think it is practical to break down the generalization further than that.

On my current system the bottleneck is the North bridge (p43). It only overclocks beyond spec about 5% stable. That gets me to about 3.8 Ghz, but I keep it at 3.6 Ghz (arbitrary, tbh). My $40 pair of 2 gig RAM sticks is only rated at 800 mhz, they get to about 1066 (when the north bridge gives out). My CPU could probably do 4.2-4.5 ghz, and no idea about my RAM.

So yeah, it could be anything. Luck is important is well.

[cenzorrll]

Honestly, i think you should consider what you need the processing power for. Right now i have a 2.13 ghz dual core and it's still a beast. There aren't many programs out there that can really take full advantage of multiple cores. I would wait until software really catches up with the capabilities of the hardware.

however, if you're doing any sort of design or editing, just going to a quad-core cpu will make a HUGE difference on your productivity, rather than clock speed. the differences between 2.5ghz and 3ghz is honestly pretty negligible, 4x2.5 = 10, 4x3 = 12. and how often is all your cores screaming along at 100% for very long?

edit: actually, as i think about it, cache has a much much larger effect than clock speed. i would research whether the cache is per core or total.

[blur xc]

Well, I've been doing more digging and I found something that irks be a bit about the core 2 quad chips...

Pretty much, a core 2 quad is two core 2 duo's stuck side by side on the same chip. What this ends up doing is that your l2 cache isn't shared between all four cores, so single threaded apps would only get half the l2 cache you might think they would get. For example- my Core 2 Duo has 6mb l2 cache, and if I'm running a single threaded app, it can have all 6mb of cache to do it's thing. If I got a core 2 quad w/ 6mb l2 cache, that means that core 0 and 1 get 3mb, and cores 2 and 3 get 3mb. So, for a single threaded app running on one core only has 3mb of cache available. So, in addition to a reduced clock speed, I'd also have less cache, so I'd have to imagine that for a single threaded app (most normal computing) my computer would run slower.

When I'd run a processor intensive app (render a video, processing raw files, etc..) it would be faster than what I've got now...

To not lose any performance on single threaded apps my only choice would be to get a nice spendy 12mb cache core 2 quad ($300-ish...)...

That's kind of a drag.

BM