Where's the bottleneck? Public system review for upgrade options.

[Ughmahedhurtz]

I consider it ancient. I have one, hell, it runs two of my characters in my 5man team. So I guess I'm a jackass to myself?

Also, why did you link that benchmark? The real benchmarks would be 3d games, which, clock-for-clock, the i5 slaughters the q6600. I have an i7, the performance increase over my overclocked q6600 was exponential - in fraps, vegas, acid 4.0.

I'd love to hear why you think the q6600 is such great architecture compared to an i5.

The benchmark I linked is the overall score. A cursory examination would have shown you the relative performance gaps between the two for individual test cases.

Here's a breakdown for each individual test. Fraps, vegas and acid aren't 3d games, so by your own argument why point that out? Your argument is inconsistent. First, it's (paraphrasing) "you need to use synthetic benchmarks because the numbers don't lie" and now it's "well not those benchmarks because those numbers don't tell the whole story." Thus, my comment about sources and links to benchmarks that back up your assertions being good for clarity's sake.

Also, "clock for clock" is meaningless as repeated benchmarks have shown.

You're making assertions that the i5 is light years ahead of the Q6600, yet the benchmarks I'm looking at don't seem to bear that out. And we're talking about answering the question of which component(s) in the OP's system would best be upgraded to help performance given his stated scenario, which is heavily stressing the graphics side versus the CPU side.

Finally, you mention having an i7. Which i7 do you have that is exponentially faster than an OC'd q6600?

I'll make a suggestion: point out empirical numbers that show the cost-effectiveness of upgrading his Q6600 to an i-series versus upgrading his 9800 video card to a GT470.

[Sam DeathWalker]

Its not the cpu its the (well nvida calls them north and south bridge not sure what intel is calling them) X58 that makes the difference. Not sure what Intel used prior to the X58 but its the X58 that blows away everything else, with its QPI and that other fast buss.

[Ughmahedhurtz]

Its not the cpu its the (well nvida calls them north and south bridge not sure what intel is calling them) X58 that makes the difference. Not sure what Intel used prior to the X58 but its the X58 that blows away everything else, with its QPI and that other fast buss.

This is where I was trying to lead this: people aren't comparing apples to apples and are just throwing out anecdotal hyperbole.

[d0z3rr]

Its not the cpu its the (well nvida calls them north and south bridge not sure what intel is calling them) X58 that makes the difference. Not sure what Intel used prior to the X58 but its the X58 that blows away everything else, with its QPI and that other fast buss.

Yup, the bridges help too. And guess what? The q6600 cannot utilize those new bridges. Hence the term "architecture", the i5/i7 have better/newer architecture, both within the CPU and what they run on.

[d0z3rr]

I'll make a suggestion: point out empirical numbers that show the cost-effectiveness of upgrading his Q6600 to an i-series versus upgrading his 9800 video card to a GT470.

Uh nope, I just realised I'm arguing with someone who thinks a q6600 is still a viable processor even though the i5/i7 are out. I'll agree to disagree.

Here is my opinion and experience:

I upgraded from a q6600 to an i7. I noticed far better performance in everything. If you don't believe me, that's kewl.