3dmark isn't hugely CPU intensive most of the time, rather leaning on the gou, although expect a massive jump on the CPU rendering test, also try cinebench. If the part is very cheap then I'd say it's worthwhile personally. I went e8400 to q9550 myself, 4ghz oc to 3.8ghz oc on the quad, and the thing flies. A clocked i7 would be quicker, but not enough, yet, to justify the cost.
- JB On 23 Oct 2010, at 00:27, FORC5 <[email protected]> wrote: > may do the i7 next year but I am getting the 9650 almost free so I figure WTH. > I'll run 3D Mark b4 and after and see what's up. > > thanks > > At 09:49 AM 10/21/2010, Greg Sevart Poked the stick with: >> Keep in mind that your per-thread performance will drop some. The E8600 is >> 3.33GHz, the Q9650 is 3.0GHz. All else being equal, apps that only use one >> or two threads will be somewhat faster on the E8600. >> >> Unless you're getting it for free or dirt cheap, I don't think it's worth >> the bother. Core i7 is substantially faster. I just moved from a C2Q at >> 3.6GHz to an i7 at 4.0GHz. > > -- > Tallyho ! ]:8) > Taglines below ! > -- > Gee... What's that ticking in the corner. >
