overclocking I5 650

[(Rm)Meister]

Hey, 

I have a q6600 on my main pc should it be a good upgrade to buy a h55 Asus mobo becouse i already have the Cpu?

 

 

[Levent]

I wouldnt bother, just because performance gain wont be that significant to justify spending money on a dual core cpu setup.

[SLAYR]

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core2-Quad-Q6600-vs-Intel-Core-i5-650/1980vsm340

 

The i5 would be better, but unless you can find a board for cheap I wouldn't bother with it, especially if you have ddr2 with your q6600.

[Pauleh]

Try selling the i5 and the q6600 and get a q9550. It's a great overclocker (like the q6600), and it performs about the same as a i7 930, or a modern (ivy bridge) i3.

[SLAYR]

4 minutes ago, Pauleh said:

Try selling the i5 and the q6600 and get a q9550. It's a great overclocker (like the q6600), and it performs about the same as a i7 930, or a modern (ivy bridge) i3.

No it doesn't

 

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core2-Quad-Q9550-vs-Intel-Core-i7-930/m334vsm79

 

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core2-Quad-Q9550-vs-Intel-Core-i3-3210/m334vsm3090

 

and you can oc a q6600 to the same speeds you can get with a q9550.

[Pauleh]

2 minutes ago, SLAYR said:

No it doesn't

 

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core2-Quad-Q9550-vs-Intel-Core-i7-930/m334vsm79

 

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core2-Quad-Q9550-vs-Intel-Core-i3-3210/m334vsm3090

 

and you can oc a q6600 to the same speeds you can get with a q9550.

Passmark

i7-930: 5217 (6816 average user score overclocked) (1189 user samples)

Q9550: 4047 (5173 average user score overclocked) (2123 user samples)

i3 3120: 3969 (N/A) (152 user samples)

Farther off then I remembered, but not "+43% faster", and the Q9550 is faster than the i3. I highly question the accuracy of that site. EVEN IF the site i normally use is off, the i7 930 is not 43% faster. Also, look at the charts below the scores that show that more people with overclocked CPU's have added their score to the site on the i7 side over the core 2 quad side, basically invalidating the accuracy of the scores.

[david cassar]

29 minutes ago, Pauleh said:

Try selling the i5 and the q6600 and get a q9550. It's a great overclocker (like the q6600), and it performs about the same as a i7 930, or a modern (ivy bridge) i3.

Although the q9550 is still a pretty decent cpu, synthetic benchmarks do not reflect real word performance. In modern day gaming the i7 930 would decimate the q9550 due to it's 8 threads compared to the q9550s 4. Also it straight out loses in most games to the ivy bridge i3 since the i3 has much better single threaded performance.

As you can see by the graph even once overclocked the q9550 is still 15% slower than the i3.

[Pauleh]

3 minutes ago, david cassar said:

Although the q9550 is still a pretty decent cpu synthetic benchmarks do not reflect real word performance. In modern day gaming the i7 930 would decimate the q9550 due to it's 8 threads compared to the q9550s 4. Also it straight out loses in most games to the ivy bridge i3 since the i3 has much better single threaded performance.

As you can see by the graph even once overclocked the q9550 is still 15% slower than the i3.

Yes, but most games these days are starting to take advantage of multiple cores. And that is a different i3 then the i3 previously mentioned.

[SLAYR]

1 hour ago, Pauleh said:

Yes, but most games these days are starting to take advantage of multiple cores. And that is a different i3 then the i3 previously mentioned.

All more reason why the i7 930 is better then the q9550 and the difference between the 3225 and 3220 is literally just the igpu.

 

http://ark.intel.com/m/compare/65693,65692

 

and also passmark is biased mainy toward amd and example is that the fx 9590 is not better then an i7 4770k (if you do not agree with this then stop being a fanboy)

 

http://m.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

 

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-FX-9590-vs-Intel-Core-i7-4770K/1812vs1537

 

Userbenchmark, and cinebench results are some of the only non biased results out there as well ad they give both single threaded and multithreaded results, passmark is comperable to cpuboss, or futuremark physics where the results just don't make sense.

[Pauleh]

11 minutes ago, SLAYR said:

All more reason why the i7 930 is better then the q9550 and the difference between the 3225 and 3220 is literally just the igpu.

 

http://ark.intel.com/m/compare/65693,65692

 

 

We are not comparing the 3225 or the 3220. We were looking at the 3210 which is clocked lower (not sure about the other differences, that's just what stood out to me on first look).

[Pauleh]

14 minutes ago, SLAYR said:

 

 

and also passmark is biased mainy toward amd and example is that the fx 9590 is not better then an i7 4770k (if you do not agree with this then stop being a fanboy)

 

http://m.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

 

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-FX-9590-vs-Intel-Core-i7-4770K/1812vs1537

 

Userbenchmark, and cinebench results are some of the only non biased results out there as well ad they give both single threaded and multithreaded results, passmark is comperable to cpuboss, or futuremark physics where the results just don't make sense.

Maybe that benchmark is bias towards multi threaded and high clocked CPU's, not sure. Thank you for pointing that out to me.

 

 

EITHER WAY, even if I was wrong in saying that the i7 930 is comparable to the Core 2 quad Q9550, It is still better value per dollar than to upgrade to a whole new platform (for the i5) (stick to the topic).