Qubit upgrades his gaming rig!

[qubit]

After 3 whole years, I'm finally upgrading the core of my PC: the CPU as I've been getting lowish, jerky framerates in current games like Fallout 3, which sucks.

I'm currently running:

AMD Athlon X2 3800+ 2GHz o/c 2.6GHz
Abit AN8 Ultra
2GB DDR400 made up of 4x512MB generic mismatched modules with a BIOS memory divider
Vista 32-bit

The system works flawlessly to this day and was a really good buy that stood the test of time. For normal desktop use, it's still really quick on Vista.

I'll now have:

Intel E8500 3.16GHz o/c 10GHz+ (kidding)
Abit Abit IP35 Pro XE with 1600FSB (good price, because Abit pulled out of the market)
4GB PC2-1150 (9200) OCZ Flex 2 bought from a friend. This is about as fast as it goes for DDR2.
Vista 64-bit

ETA for the CPU & motherboard is tomorrow. Can't wait.

The graphics cards are currently an 8800GTX & HD4870, having sold the powerful 9800 GX2 on eBay for a profit recently. I'll be upgrading these in the next couple of months to a top-end single GPU 1GB card, possibly going nvidia.

I was gonna go for a Q8300, but decided against it, because my number one reason for upgrading is to improve framerate and the E8500 overclocks better and has a bigger cache. I then realised that the Q8300 doesn't support virtualisation technology, which is a dealbreaker straight away for me. I didn't want the Q6600 which has VT, because it's built on the old 65nm technology and still won't outperform the E8500 in games.

[BarbaricSoul]

you shoulda kept the GX2 and paired it up with a CPU that could actually keep up with it. I paired my GX2 when I first got it with a x2 5200 and wasn't extremely impressed. But when I put it with my e8400 OC'ed at 3.8 gig, OMFG, it was a beautiful thing. 19870 3dmark06 score

[qubit]

There were two main reasons for flogging the GX2, as much as I liked it.

- funds won't quite stretch to the above AND a graphics card. This combination will deliver much better frame rates right now - proved this with the above cards on my mate's E8400 system at stock speeds.

I'll have the money in the not too distant future to get a better 1GB card than the GX2. It's two main limitations are the 2x512MB RAM which gives only 512MB usable memory, which can cause frame rates to tank at high resolutions and quality settings when it runs out.

- The SLI nature of the card means performance bottlenecks, sometimes severe if only one GPU is doing the rendering due to profile issues etc.

[Darren]

You could stick with the AMD route!

The Phenom II 920 is the same price as the E8500, faster in majority of applications, over clocks just as well, plus has the longevity with it being a quad core.

The 8800GTX & HD4870 are both powerful cards still, I would not be in a rush to replace either card, with the new CPU you should see a slight performance in gaming performance regardless.

[BarbaricSoul]

proved this with the above cards on my mate's E8400 system at stock speeds.

Yeah, with my e8400 at stock speeds, the GX2 was still being bottle-necked. I turned my CPU up to 3.8(the point where my increases in performance started to level off) and I had better max FPS than I get on my 260. Also, I had the GX2 OC'ed to 700/1800/2300(not too sure about the shader clock, believe 1800 is what it was set at) The only point at which my 260 beats the GX2 that actually mattered to me is minimum FPS in crysis. A GX2 needs a 3.6 gig dual core or higher not to be bottle-necked. I traded my GX2 for a pair of 9800gtx OC, and to this day, I'm still kicking myself in the ass for trading it.

[qubit]

Originally Posted by Darren

You could stick with the AMD route!

The Phenom II 920 is the same price as the E8500, faster in majority of applications, over clocks just as well, plus has the longevity with it being a quad core.

I don't remember reviews being that favourable towards it. If anything, the new Phenoms are a fair bit better than the old ones, but still no match for the Intels and the reviewers were quite disappointed.

If you can find me a graph or two, that would be interesting.

The 8800GTX & HD4870 are both powerful cards still, I would not be in a rush to replace either card, with the new CPU you should see a slight performance in gaming performance regardless.[/QUOTE]

Running these cards with my mate's E8400 showed dramatic performance improvements. We're talking something like 80fps to 140fps in certain tests at certain resolutions - I don't remember the exact details now. I do remember that we tested using Trackmania United Forever, because of its easy benchmarking function.

You can never have too much processing power when it comes to high-end games, so I will be buying a high-end graphics card - some model not yet available, or a current one more cheaply - to complement my new CPU soon.

[spearman914]

Your going to be AMAZED with the E8400 overclockability. Good luck!!!

[qubit]

Originally Posted by BarbaricSoul

Yeah, with my e8400 at stock speeds, the GX2 was still being bottle-necked. I turned my CPU up to 3.8(the point where my increases in performance started to level off) and I had better max FPS than I get on my 260. Also, I had the GX2 OC'ed to 700/1800/2300(not too sure about the shader clock, believe 1800 is what it was set at) The only point at which my 260 beats the GX2 that actually mattered to me is minimum FPS in crysis. A GX2 needs a 3.6 gig dual core or higher not to be bottle-necked. I traded my GX2 for a pair of 9800gtx OC, and to this day, I'm still kicking myself in the ass for trading it.

That's an interesting tale and I'm sorry you've done something you regret. At least you can console yourself that you will be able to get something much better than that GX2 in the not too distant future. Basically, a current GTX285 (or old GTX280) is similar to a GX2, but without the limitations of SLI and 2x512MB memory banks which helps prevent stutter in high res modes with high AA/AF and has higher performance to boot. See TPU's GTX295 review for a good comparison.

Ya know, I'm missing my GX2, despite better cards being available now. It had a certain character to it and fiddling around with the SLI settings was interesting. But hey, I can always get a GTX295 if I pine too much (and I've got the money)... lol

[LittleLizard]

ok, but think it in this way, for the same price u can have either a fast quad core with lots of cache and very overclockeable or a fast dual core with lots of cache and very overclockeable. is a no brainer. also u can get a high end amd mobo for cheap these days

[Darren]

qubit,

AMD have had their reputations destroyed, mostly by fan boys that have spread false information about them. Even if AMD were to bring out the most powerful CPU in the world, the Intel loyalists will find a way to make it seem like their CPUs are not performing.

In games high end CPUs don't do very much, yeah you will see a increase as you said 80 FPS to 140 FPS but in all respects 80 FPS is fantastic, anything above 30 FPS is decent, 60 FPS is fantastic, 80 FPS and you're not satisfied? lol.

As for the graphs, the Phenom II 920 outperforms the E8600.










Full review @ http://www.techspot.com/review/137-a...m2-x4-940-920/

[qubit]

Originally Posted by spearman914

Your going to be AMAZED with the E8400 overclockability. Good luck!!!

Look you, I bought an E8500!! lol

And thanks!

[spearman914]

Originally Posted by qubit

Look you, I bought an E8500!! lol

And thanks!

LOL. I wasn't refering to that i bought the E8500. But overall seeing the E8500 can go to 4GHz on air is pretty cool.

[qubit]

Originally Posted by LittleLizard

ok, but think it in this way, for the same price u can have either a fast quad core with lots of cache and very overclockeable or a fast dual core with lots of cache and very overclockeable. is a no brainer. also u can get a high end amd mobo for cheap these days

Are you thinking of the Q6600 v E8500? I went for the E8500 because it's running on the newer 45NM process, which runs cooler and the benchmarks I saw showed it outperforming the Q6600 by a bit.

But hey, I've not got my items yet and I could always swap out the processor for the Q6600. What do you think?

[Darren]

Originally Posted by qubit

Are you thinking of the Q6600 v E8500? I went for the E8500 because it's running on the newer 45NM process, which runs cooler and the benchmarks I saw showed it outperforming the Q6600 by a bit.

E8500 will beat the Q6600 hands down! (In office tasks, encoding, rendering the advantage would be with the Q6600)

The Q6600 = Phenom 9950 BE

To be objective about the situation. The performance difference between the Phenom 9950, Q6600, and E8500 is small.


I'd personally get either the Q6600 or Phenom 9950 because you'd have longevity, i.e. the life span of the E8500 is going to be shorter due to developers wanting to move to four threads.

[qubit]

Originally Posted by Darren

qubit,

AMD have had their reputations destroyed, mostly by fan boys that have spread false information about them. Even if AMD were to bring out the most powerful CPU in the world, the Intel loyalists will find a way to make it seem like their CPUs are not performing.

In games high end CPUs don't do very much, yeah you will see a increase as you said 80 FPS to 140 FPS but in all respects 80 FPS is fantastic, anything above 30 FPS is decent, 60 FPS is fantastic, 80 FPS and you're not satisfied? lol.

As for the graphs, the Phenom II 920 outperforms the E8600.

Hmmm.... that's quite a margin, thanks for that. But what about overclocked speeds? This is now my third performance PC upgrade and I've significantly o/c all my processors. Surely the E8500 is gonna blow away the Phenom 2 here?

EDIT: This Hexus review shows the E8400 blowing away the new Phenoms. Results seem to depend on who tests what, doesn't it?

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=17113&page=9

[BloodTotal]

exactly why I got a q6600 instead of a e8500

4 cores vs. 2 cores

[Darren]

Originally Posted by qubit

Hmmm.... that's quite a margin, thanks for that. But what about overclocked speeds? This is now my third performance PC upgrade and I've significantly o/c all my processors. Surely the E8500 is gonna blow away the Phenom 2 here?

An overclocked E8500 (say @ 3.8 Ghz) would probably compete with a Phenom 2, perhaps outperform, blow it away I very much doubt. Like I said with the developers moving towards four threads e.g. Alan Wake the Phenom II will have an unfair advantage regardless of the E8500s OC. The Phenom II is known to over clock well too. Plenty of people on TPU have got their Phenom IIs to around 3.8 GHz on generic cooling and 4 GHz on more exotic cooling, and this is on standard AM2/AM2+ motherboards, not even genuine AM3 motherboards.


http://forums.techpowerup.com/showth...ghlight=Phenom

[qubit]

Originally Posted by Darren

An overclocked E8500 (say @ 3.8 Ghz) would probably compete with a Phenom 2, perhaps outperform, blow it away I very much doubt. Like I said with the developers moving towards four threads e.g. Alan Wake the Phenom II will have an unfair advantage regardless of the E8500s OC. The Phenom II is known to over clock well too. Plenty of people on TPU have got their Phenom IIs to around 3.8 GHz on generic cooling and 4 GHz on more exotic cooling, and this is on standard AM2/AM2+ motherboards, not even genuine AM3 motherboards.

Well, I want to extract the most gaming performance NOW and I'm still not confident in an AMD platform nowadays, frankly.

It's uncertain when quads are really gonna stretch their legs in multithreaded games, but I'm sure it's a good 9 months to a year until we see significant usage. And then it'll be an excuse for another nice upgrade. lol

[LittleLizard]

Originally Posted by qubit

Are you thinking of the Q6600 v E8500? I went for the E8500 because it's running on the newer 45NM process, which runs cooler and the benchmarks I saw showed it outperforming the Q6600 by a bit.

But hey, I've not got my items yet and I could always swap out the processor for the Q6600. What do you think?

did u read the part i said AMD MOBO, im referring that phenom 920 > e8500

[Darren]

Originally Posted by qubit

EDIT: This Hexus review shows the E8400 blowing away the new Phenoms. Results seem to depend on who tests what, doesn't it?

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=17113&page=9

I'm not a fan of www.hexus.net because they do their graphs in flash so you can not copy and paste the links into the forum.

Those results are strange though, because the E8400 is actually beating the i7 in a lot of tests. Miss print?




















Full review @ http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...rclocking.html









Full review @ http://www.cpu3d.com/review/7104-1/a...roduction.html


The main event!








Full review @
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpu...d-920-review/1

Trying to be as objective as possible, I kept it only at gaming bencharks as you said that you were a gamer, but in some other tasks like rendering, encoding, multitasking, there are some situations where you can see that dual core isn't sufficient. If you want those benchmarks too I can provide them too.

Edit:

BRB in about 5 hours, going to take a power nap, its 4:30 am here!

[qubit]

Originally Posted by Darren

I'm not a fan of www.hexus.net because they do their graphs in flash so you can not copy and paste the links into the forum.

Yeah, I've noticed quite a few sites do that lately. "Protecting their copyright" in some blinkered fashion, no doubt. Preventing quotes actually reduces interest in their sites and reduces overall traffic. A Hexus watermark over their graphs would be sufficient to stop other sites passing Hexus's work as their own.

Originally Posted by Darren

Those results are strange though, because the E8400 is actually beating the i7 in a lot of tests. Miss print?

Quite. Hexus is normally pretty reliable, so I don't know what's going on there.

Originally Posted by Darren

Trying to be as objective as possible, I kept it only at gaming bencharks as you said that you were a gamer, but in some other tasks like rendering, encoding, multitasking, there are some situations where you can see that dual core isn't sufficient. If you want those benchmarks too I can provide them too.

Edit:

BRB in about 5 hours, going to take a power nap, its 4:30 am here!

Wow, thanks for researching all those graphs. Most of those tests seem to centre on quad core comparisons, which isn't really what I'm after. Where the E8500 shows up though, it does do a bit better than the Q6700 in those tests, but that's 65nm, which rules it out for me.

Indeed, gaming are the only apps which I'm looking to ramp up performance as much as possible. Apart from the occasional bit of Virtual PC and running alternative Windows installs for testing stuff, my PC use is pretty basic and I don't do any video processing or anything like that. Had I done so, then I would have likely got the Q6600 or one of the higher-end 45nm quads. But now the AMD quads are doing somewhat better now, just to muddy the waters...

You appear to be in the same timezone as me (GMT). Unfortunately, I couldn't sleep tonight and I have to be at work for 8am. Joy.

[qubit]

Originally Posted by LittleLizard

did u read the part i said AMD MOBO, im referring that phenom 920 > e8500

Sorry, your post wasn't that clear as it stood. However, the 920 does indeed seem to outperform the E8500, as explained by other posters. However, I have more confidence in the Intel platform at the moment.

In a year, everything will change there will be 8-core Nehalems to drool over and other goodies. Ours is an expensive hobby.