Upgrade time! Bang for buck

I'm running on a couple year old computer but it's been rock solid for me, but it comes a time to do some minor tweaking to meet with the rising demands of my addiction.

Which is going to get me the bigger upgrade on my system specifically for WoW? Upgrading the processor or adding an SSD to host wow on?

Machine Specs:
BFG GeForce 8800 GTS / 640MB / PCIe
Intel Core 2 Duo e6300 - 1.86Ghz / 2MB Cache / 1066 FSB
4 GB 667 Mhz Ram
2x500g SATA Hard Drives in Raid 0
WinXP Pro

The motherboard supports up to the q6700 - 2.66ghz Quad Core 8 MB Cache 10066 FSB which would be a significant upgrade.

But would I get more of a efficiency increase from switching to running WoW off an SSD? Considering the price is roughly the same (with the SSD being slightly more) for each of these different upgrades.

I'm currently 4 boxing on a single 22" monitor and am borderline with throwing in a 5th to start 5 boxing and kicking to a dual monitor setup. I keep dropping my graphics down further and further as I get to higher end content. Hellfire wasn't bad, but Zangermarsh is kicking my computers ass. Using HKN and trying to switch screens is painfully slow.

Upgrade order:

Graphics Card
Processor
Vista64
Memory to 8gb (for 5 Box)

you would probably be better off buying a cheap quad core machine (with one or two screens) and running the 4 slaves off that, and using the original machine for your main

Id have to say the quad core would make more difference than graphics card or SSD.

Depending on whether or not that e63 is overclocked I'd upgrade it with a quad and then a new gpu since the 640 is the very old version, I also don't really have much faith in SSD being a big upgrade for overall performance. ;)

I suggest yeh get the fastest cpu yeh can afford after that get an ssd
the graphics card will have the least impact on performance for wow.

I wouldn't considering going to vista an upgrade

my vote is for the cpu to quad core, then the graphics card.

SSD looks great on paper and all... but it is by no means a "primary bottleneck". You're always going to find much greater performance gains by upgrading the GPU, CPU and RAM; preferably in that order.

Looking at your current specs, I'd say your CPU is more than likely your bottleneck, followed closely by your RAM. Depending on what kind of budget you are working with, it might be worth considering a complete system architecture upgrade. Possibly to a i7 920? It would require a new motherboard and ram, but the rest of your components would carry over just fine.

If you're looking for a cheaper solution, I'd definitely go with the Q6700 and call it a day.

Thanks for the suggestions.

It's not quite time for me to do he complete overhaul, but it's getting there. I am just looking at dropping the 200 bucks or so sort of "get over the hump." Considering that I haven't had to many problems with 4 boxing until I hit outlands, the box can handle it, but I am pretty much pulling the limits.

I think my best bet will be the processor then. I keep hearing a lot of huzzah about the SSD drives and wanted to make sure it wasn't something that was going to remove what could have been my biggest bottleneck. While my video card is dated a bit, it's still comparable with the more modern cards that would be in my price range for what I want to put into the system.

The vista upgrade and mobo/cpu upgrade would definitely be part of the complete system that I'm planning for sometime next year.

Again, thanks for the suggestions, I think I am thuroughly confident in my decision now. =)

I have the intel SSD and I love it however, I really didn't see that much improvement in the game.
sure, the game loaded in 1/2 or 1/3 the time but that's not such a factor once the game is up and running.

I vote for a faster CPU and preferably quad core from the specs you have described.

I too vote for the Q6700. it would improve your overall processing capacity greatly.

While your 8800gts isn't the best 8800gts, it should prove sufficient until you get a budget for a whole new machine. Same goes for your OS, RAM and HDDs

ssd will make a big difference when yeh hit a high population area with lots of pc/npcs, changing zones or loading into an instance.

CPU hands down. I probably would suggest Q6600 instead of Q6700 (Q6660 runs at 2.4 GHz and Q6700 runs at 2.66 GHz). Why?

Q6600 was very affordable, Q6700 was over twice the price for an extra .26 GHz - not worth it, specially with the Q6600 being so easily over-clockable (many reports of 3.0 GHz on stock cooler). Therefore Q6700 was never popular, there aren't many around , and possibly the performance over the Q6600 doesn't justify the extra cost.

Just a though ...

I like my AMD 3.2GHZ (2 X 1G cache) X2 ...