There you have it, confirmation that the small i7 increase in performance
isn't worth the significant price to upgrade. New hardware next year and
it's just a few short months until then. Wait for the reviews on Bulldozer
from AMD. It's the first completely new architecture from them in years
and it should rock.
On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 07:35:10 -0500, James Boswell <[email protected]>
wrote:
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.
--
Opera's e-mail client
Main Machine:
Generic Steel Case
ASUS M4A89GTD Pro/USB3 Mobo
AMD Phenom II X6 1055T (Default speed)
OCZ DDR3 1333 (2x2=4)
Palit GTX460 1 Gig (OC'd to 865 MHz)
WD Cariar Black 640 Gig
Lite On 22X DVD Burner
ASUS 21.5" 1080P Monitor
fold...@home (11,000 PPD)
Game Box:
Cooler Master CM690 Mid-Tower
Gigabyte 785G/SB710
AMD Phenom II X2 555 C3
Corsair Dominator RAM 2 gigs
PowerColor HD5770 1 gig
Seasonic 550 watt PSU
2 Seagate 7200.12 500 gig (RAID 0)
LiteOn DVD Burner
