Bundle

[Panda On Smack]

A friend of mine was looking to upgrade and he asked me what's good at the mo and in all honesty i've lost touch as to the latest CPU's and Mobo's

So can someone clue me as to what's the latest and best option for a CPU and Mobo please?

I'm guessing some sort of Intel CoreDuo?

 

[Kryten]

Straight out, Intel Core2 Q6600 and motherboard of choice - asus p5k or gigabyte p35-ds3 are a good starting combination and you can work up/down from that to suit your budget.

Little lower, Core2Duo e6750 will knock £50 off the price but still nice performance.

 

[Jonty]

Hi Panda

I'd definitely second Kryten's recommendation. Although I'm not au fait with motherboards, Intel's Core 2 processors offer great price and performance, and AMD's rival Phenom offerings aren't exactly stellar right now.

Kind regards

 

[Panda On Smack]

Thanks chaps

What about memory? think there is another thread about it as well so sill check that

Do you have and shop recommendations? Scan etc?

ta

 

[Insane]

Straight out, Intel Core2 Q6600 and motherboard of choice - asus p5k or gigabyte p35-ds3 are a good starting combination and you can work up/down from that to suit your budget.

He speak'eth the truth, purely because I think there are now 5 of us running Q6600's with P35-DS3 boards.
(TdC i blame you! )

Best memory is to pick up 1066mhz memory (DDR2-8500 ?)
Again Kryten dropped names like OCZ and Geil but preference to Corsair and Crucial for warranty

I tend to tell people to stick with the brands like crucial, corsair etc mainly because of warranties and compatibility. OCZ and Geil are also good names and both I believe offer a decent warranty and compatibility rate. There's not much point in chosing silly expensive memory for the sake of heatsinks glued on them or low latency unless you intend on overclocking or really pushing the system beyond the stock limits.

I personally went with Scan because it was marginally cheaper and they had everything in stock at the time, but Overclockers UK are normally well priced. (because im in Northern Ireland my views are slightly tainted due to extortionate costs involved in shipping boxes )

If your picking up memory, it might be more worthwhile investing in 4gb matched pairs since its so cheap lately, but that will force you into going to x64 Vista which i wouldn't want to wish on anyone

 

[Jonty]

Hi Panda

Just a couple more points for you. With regards the memory, although the capacity (e.g. 2GB etc.) and frequency speed (i.e. the X Mhz/PC-XXXX rating) are the most important figures, you may also want to think about the CAS latency too. This information is prefixed with 'CL' and then some numbers. The lower the numbers, the faster the RAM responds, and thus the better the performance. You can have two types of RAM with the same capacity and the same Mhz/PC rating, but the CAS latency can provide a slight difference in performance (usually not a dramatic jump, but enough to impact benchmark scores).

Other things to consider are the brand (as Insane says, some have a better reputation and warranty), heatspreaders (useful if you plan on overclocking your system), and prices (4GB is relatively cheap and will become the new standard this year). Please also note that you can use 4GB of memory with 32-bit operating systems, but you'll only have access to around 3.2GB (which is not to be sniffed at).

Kind regards

 

[Litmus]

Oh why oh why do people keep recommending to buy quad core cpu's? i think people think, just because it has 4 core's it therfore must be the best! untrue.. infact there is'nt a single thing that actually supports more then 2 cores. The only advantage it really has if you are some kind of kind of hardcore graphic artist who process movies all day long. Save you self some money and just get a core duo which will overlock like the bollocks anyway.

 

[Jonty]

Oh why oh why do people keep recommending to buy quad core cpu's?

Hi Litmus

It's true that very few applications support multi-core CPUs, but there are some which benefit (such as encoding applications, professional design apps, some games like Alan Wake etc.). However, the main point is that quad-core CPUs currently have a fairly low price premium, so it's worth spending a little extra to get better performance now and in the future. If there was a huge gap in price then people wouldn't be so quick to recommend them.

Kind regards

 

[Jupitus]

Indeed - the Q6600 is excellent value at the moment, and will overclock very nicely aswell... in terms of price/longevity it has to be a good bet.

 

[KevinUK]

I read that quad cores are far worse in performance than dual to the time to allocate stuff to the cpus? There were comparison tables with quads like 20% worse?

 

[Litmus]

I read that quad cores are far worse in performance than dual to the time to allocate stuff to the cpus? There were comparison tables with quads like 20% worse?

First gen quad cores, wait afew months and there will be a new quicker chip with more cahe etc.. like with the new Wolfdale duo's which have just come out.

 

[TdC]

I read that quad cores are far worse in performance than dual to the time to allocate stuff to the cpus? There were comparison tables with quads like 20% worse?

depends what you're doing with it too, and what OS you are running. Generally, you will not get 100% performance increase per extra core, so don't delude yourself. However, for example me, I run a graphics program where I can tell the program how many cores I want it to use for computations, and I run VMware, where I can give my host OS up to two cores of my quad core system to play with, which is kinda nice because I write scripts and things which tend to need to be multicpu aware because at work unicores are almost non-existent.

Though once again, letting a program use more then one core is very dependent on the underlying kernel's efficiency, and the awareness of the running program of multiple threads and stuff. For example, my gfx proggy can use as many cores as it wants, but if I run a filter that is written as a single threaded application, then the load generated by the filter will stay in one core and not be spread over the whole cpu. Unless I run two filters at once, which then becomes more efficient. Ofc, if you consistently run programs that don't care about multicores, you can bind that program to a single core and everything that program does will exclusively be run in said core, and the switching between cores will no longer take place for that program.

ye gods, I ramble. the jist is that an extra core will not make your computer x times as fast, it will give you the opportunity to do some more things at once within limits. If you use your computer to surf the internet and that's it, then more than two cores could be considered pointless I suppose. If you do more stuff with it, then the extra cores become more justified. I suppose that if you purely want speed, it may be a better idea to get a faster duo-core over a quad at the same price. I mean, you won't see a family of six packed into a ferrari, but when the MPV gets to the destination, it will have gotten the 4 kids, the dog, and the caravan there too

 

[throdgrain]

Oh why oh why do people keep recommending to buy quad core cpu's? i think people think, just because it has 4 core's it therfore must be the best! untrue.. infact there is'nt a single thing that actually supports more then 2 cores. The only advantage it really has if you are some kind of kind of hardcore graphic artist who process movies all day long. Save you self some money and just get a core duo which will overlock like the bollocks anyway.

Heh. This is the reason why me, Mr-More-money-than-sense upgrade every few months bloke, still runs a 2.4 core2 duo, after over a year ,in a Asus P5 board. Ive upgraded my graphics recently, but at the moment no need for a cpu

 

[Kryten]

Complete bollocks, Litmus.

Worse performance than Dual Cores? Odd... do you perhaps own a Phenom?

Rather typical speak from someone who's speccing systems for the present time rather than getting the best bang for the buck AND keeping the near future in mind.

Application performance on its own on a quad is second to none - especially those of us using the likes of Photoshop. Even the more mundane tasks like encoding DVD's are made far quicker with these extra cores.

We all know Crysis makes full (but bad) use of all the cores by allocating them to specific tasks, and other games make use of them in the same way as hyperthreading and dual cores/processors. You wont be getting 4x the performance naturally.

I keep saying it, and I'll continue to do so - there's more to this lark than just knocking something up that's alright now - especially when you're pissed off that it won't play the hot titles in 2 months time without struggling or having to make some detail sacrifice.

And for the price, if you can afford the extra £40 odd quid on top of the best bang for buck dual core, you'd be a daft not to.

Edit : and for note, like many others in here I'm not just thinking like "ooh its got more numbers, therefore it must be quicker" - I've a technical background and knowledge that goes a long way beyond building up single systems. I don't like seeing people get ripped off, a good deal has to include many things and futureproofing is one. If I, or anyone was recommending the q6600 on pure numbers, then I'd be happy to let you continue to say that sort of thing - but ask the several people I've already recommended this product to and ask if they're unhappy. See how many others have seconded those opinions, or how many other peoples opinions I have seconded.

The machine next to me is a q6600 G0 with 4gb of ram on Vista. This machine is an e6600 with 4gb of ram on Vista.
I know which is quicker, and it's not this one. I need the extra cores for the constant number crunching and general workhorsery > one does

 

[throdgrain]

I dont do any of that workhorsey stuff mate, I play CSS. Theres no gain I can see from getting a quadcore at the moment, otherwise Id have one by now

 

[Kryten]

No point going from dual to quad I agree that much - we're blessed atm with having a series of processors that are stonking performers from the basic ones to the stupidly expensive ones, they'll last a good while yet The main moves forward for the next year or so will be in graphics if anything.

 

[Panda On Smack]

I've gone and got a Q6600 and a P5K board myself now!! Should be here tomorrow!

Hopefully 4gb of ram and Vista 64bit will be added in.

There were about 10 versions of the P5K board, I just got the normal version for £70. That's cool right?

 

[Kryten]

Yeah, should do you just fine. They're pretty much teh same across the board, generally the differences are the better ones have more heatsinks around the processor, onboard hardware like wireless (which as I've already said is pants) and even something as technical as a different coloured board.

You'll be nice and futureproof to a point, it'll take the new 45nm processors and what not so there's a decent upgrade path should you need to (will be a while though with that setup

 

[Panda On Smack]

Nice one

Cheers for your help and everyone else who has chipped in!

1 last thing is Overclocking, seems to be a popular chip to overclock, would you recommend that or will stock speed be just fine?

ta

 

[Ch3tan]

I dont do any of that workhorsey stuff mate, I play CSS. Theres no gain I can see from getting a quadcore at the moment, otherwise Id have one by now

I got my c2duo based system in November 2006. I have not upgraded a thing, and there is still nothing out that I cannot run. True I do not have a dx10 graphics card, but neither do I care much

Nice one

Cheers for your help and everyone else who has chipped in!

1 last thing is Overclocking, seems to be a popular chip to overclock, would you recommend that or will stock speed be just fine?

ta

I oc'd my c2duo. I did not do it because I had to, but because it was so easy and I wanted to know how far it could be pushed. I run it at stock now, but have the memory running OC'd. The newer chips are cooler and should overclock better as well, nice to know what you can push it to if you suddenly find a game that need more powah.

 

[Kryten]

Nail on the heat Ch3t - "because it's easy".
These thing's take to overclocking like ducks to water. If you feel like a go at it yourself, in the bios options on the P5K you have "CPU Jumperfree Configuration" and in there you just typically raise the FSB to a sensible level.
If memory serves the Q6600 runs at 266mhz FSB at stock (thats 266x4 hence 1066mhz FSB quoted). Whack that up to 300 or even 333 and it shouldn't even bat an eyelid - even on stock cooling.

People will go a lot further than that by raising the voltages and what not but that's really just overkill, people doing it "because they can". Even that shows you how much more you can push these chips.

But of course for the time being just run it at stock - there's no way in hell it will be bottlenecking anything at stock speed currently.

 

[Reza]

The new 45nm quads are out (yorkfield?) which obviously means the old 65nm are now great value. Or if you really know you will make use of the quads you can get a new q9450 (stock 2.66ghz, 12mb cache, 45nm) for around £215-220. So thats around £50 more than a q6600 but with better performance, better thermal efficiency and more power/money efficient.

Of course unless you really are regularly doing alot of multitasking you might not really make use of the quadcore while next to no software is being released to really make use of multicores. 1 core for 'folding', a couple for 2 instances of a game, and a 3rd for all other processes running might justify it i guess

But for me id stick to a new 45 nm dual core like the E8400 going for under £130 here:
Computer hardware and software at amazing prices, available online from Scan Computers UK

I can often see the need for 1 more core (personally not really for 3 more) and the cooling issues, running costs and performance wouldnt be as much of a headache. All in a cheaper cpu.

I see quad core at the borderline gimic end of the market today. By the time that the bulk of software is really out to make full use of multi thread cores, we will be at a smaller processor than 45nm and the multiple number of cores running on a single cpu will be well past 4. Not to mention that the efficiency (the amount of processing power lost through multiple cores 'communicating/coordinating' with each other) will be much improved.

In short if your not planning crazy multitasking stick to a dual core and save cash up front and running cost for now.

 

[Panda On Smack]

If you feel like a go at it yourself, in the bios options on the P5K you have "CPU Jumperfree Configuration" and in there you just typically raise the FSB to a sensible level.
If memory serves the Q6600 runs at 266mhz FSB at stock (thats 266x4 hence 1066mhz FSB quoted). Whack that up to 300 or even 333 and it shouldn't even bat an eyelid - even on stock cooling.

I dont have a 300 options, only 266 or 333

My memory is 1066

will try and do some research

 

[Kryten]

Ah, thats right, my mistake.
Mine's on 333, that's without having changed anything like voltages, ram timings or anything.

 

[Panda On Smack]

So just change to 333 and thats all you did?

 

[Panda On Smack]

I just tried to change my FSB Frequency under CPU Jumper section and i cant. its stuck on 266, nothing i change makes it editable?

there isa FSB northbridge somethign opion that i can edit?

Scrap that: Help..Cant increase FSB P5K-E Wifi - Futuremark / YouGamers Forums