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

[Ughmahedhurtz]

Upgrade to a i5/i7 platform, if you don't want to spend money try the x6 from AMD. Either way get off of that ancient q6600 and you'll see a huge difference.

To realise the benefit of switching from a q6600 to an i5/i7/x6, you need synthetic benchmarks that give you numbers.

You mean like these synthetic benchmarks?

Q6600 2.4GHz --> i5 2.4GHz = 20% performance bump.
Q9450 2.66GHz --> i5 2.4GHz = 5% performance bump. (Q9450 2.66GHz is roughly equivalent to a Q6600 OC@3.0GHz)
Q6600 2.4GHz --> i7 920 @ 2.66GHz = 38% performance bump.
Q9450 2.66GHz (or Q6600 @ 3.0GHz) --> i7 920 @ 2.66GHz = 25% performance bump.

So. If you got a nice heatsink and did some very minor overclocking, you could easily match an i5 for performance and get within about 20% of an i7 for 1/6th the cost.

I really wish people would tell the whole story and provide sources and numbers instead of just being a jackass and calling peoples' hardware "ancient" and sucky and outdated. Sounds like Paris Hilton doing a PC review.

Furthermore, this whole discussion of CPUs gets blown up when talking about ISBoxer. Due to the way it (usually) runs all clients at max resolution and reading the OP where they are running at 2048x1154, there is a much larger impact on VRAM and GPU than there is on CPU. Especially with the Cataclysm engine updates.

Personally, I'd look at doing a leapfrog update of the 9800 to a more recent card like a GTX 470 for about $250 which will at least _double_ or _triple_ the graphics performance of your 9800. The Q6600 is fine if you're only running 5 clients, though I would definitely try stepping the 4 alts down to 800x600 or 1024x768 or so. You really don't need to run them at max rez, IMO. Maybe there's a technical limitation (like losing the mouse broadcasting feature) with ISBoxer that necessitates that but I'd be surprised if so.


[edit] On a related note, see this page for a glaring example of how synthetic benchmarks like 3DMark can drastically skew numbers versus what you'll see in real-world game scenarios.

[d0z3rr]

You mean like these synthetic benchmarks?

Q6600 2.4GHz --> i5 2.4GHz = 20% performance bump.
Q9450 2.66GHz --> i5 2.4GH.

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.

[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.