Anyone still using LGA 775 as part of their main rigs?

[thefordmccord]

Still rocking a Q9650 @ 4ghz myself.

 

[GrumpyMan]

Still have my E-8500 running at 3.8. I really didn't need to upgrade since it's still very quick and has always been rock solid, but did so anyway. My lucky brother will receive it as his Christmas present, lucky guy.

 

[peonyu]

I had a E8500 @ 4.2ghz system for a year and upgraded to a 2500k a few months ago. Before that I had another dual core intel cpu at 3.2ghz, a 775 system @ 4ghz is still competent and continues to kick ass. The only issue 775 is facing is with the dual core cpus, in another year I doubt they will hold up well at all at any clock rate.

Quad cores are going to be fine but if you dont have a Quad now you might be screwed. The reason I upgraded the entire system to Sandy bridge was price vs performance...Retailers and resellers are charging a arm and a leg for 775 Quad cores since they know they are still good but becoming rare. For 189$ I could by a Quad cpu for 775 or for 225$ buy a 2500k...In my book it was no contest between the two options. The added cost of a new mobo+ram certainly was there with Sandy Bridge, but I didn't feel like i was being screwed on pricing by buying it whereas the 775 prices are screwy [unless you luck out in For sale/trade on forums].

 

[LagunaX]

I loved my e8500 that ran at 4.5ghz @ 1.304v air - probably the best e8500 ever made. Even when I built an i3-540 @ 4.6ghz I still liked to go back to the e8500 despite the Clarkdale being 100mhz faster and running 4 threads stable.
Now they are both gathering dust ( offers? ) as nothing compares to a quad Sandy Bridge at 4.8ghz. Faster boot, video conversion, frames per second, etc. No lag, smooth as butter. And with the voltage offset option, it sips electricity on idle and doesn't make the room toasty anymore. Don't get me wrong my other 2 rigs are still plenty fast but I just have a hard time using them now because I do notice the difference.
Just my 2¢...

On a side note as far as how much technology has improved, the cheap i3-2100 equals the q9650...shocking as the i3-2100, H-something mobo, and 8gb of ram upgrade can be had for less than $200...
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/49?vs=289

 

[tweakboy]

The difference in performance from the Pentium 4 Pentium D to Core 2 Quad is HUGE!!!

I much bigger difference in performance compared to a LGA 775 quad core OCed vs a Sandy Bridge,,,,gl

 

[tweakboy]

The Core 2 technology was a break through back in 2006, i7 or Sandy not as much a break through, Haswell however might be the big break through.. not Ivy ,,, Lets all skip Ivy Bridge,, fak Intel they just want your money and a month later come out with a new chipset.. sighs,,

 

[peonyu]

Core 2 was great but it wasn't really a breakthrough. The technology is largely derived from their Pentium M tech which was developed in Israel. Back in the early 2000's some folks managed to run those mobile chips on the desktop and the performance even at a low clock rate smoked the P4s. Intel took most of that tech, polished it some, added another core and called it the C2D.

It looks like a massive breakthrough only because AMD has been sleeping at the wheel since they released the Athlon 64, and because the P4 itself was such a pig as far as Mhz and performance per Mhz was concerned.

 

[IGemini]

Core 2 was great but it wasn't really a breakthrough. The technology is largely derived from their Pentium M tech which was developed in Israel.

So it wasn't a breakthrough because it was a derivative of a chip from a smaller market?

Core 2 completely changed Intel's position. Pentium 4/D were power-hungry and inefficient like you said. When Core 2 was released it made even AMD's flagship desktop CPU (the FX-62 at the time, I believe) obsolete by the midrange E6600 for only ~1/3 the price, and AMD had to make some DEEP price cuts to compete. It also made Apple drop IBM's PowerPC for Core 2 to use in their computers. Core 2 was a huge commercial success and got the ball rolling again on Intel being the dominant processor manufacturer even today, I'd say that's a breakthrough.

 

[Skott]

My wife's rig has a E6750 in it. She's not into heavy 3D gaming like I am though. Hers is more of the casual light 3D type games.

 

[aviat72]

I think the only issue is overall power consumption and reliability. Once the IvyBridge chipsets are out, perhaps time for upgrade. The chance of something failing will start increasing significantly after 4-5 years so if you can not tolerate downtime, it might be worth it to move up. Also you can still get decent value for used Quad Core systems so the total cost of the upgrade is not that much. One thing I have learnt is that it is better to spend the 10-20% more when buying the system and be in the right generation. Dual Core systems from the same time command much less than quad core. The virtualization boom may have something to do with it.

 

[peonyu]

So it wasn't a breakthrough because it was a derivative of a chip from a smaller market?

Core 2 completely changed Intel's position. Pentium 4/D were power-hungry and inefficient like you said. When Core 2 was released it made even AMD's flagship desktop CPU (the FX-62 at the time, I believe) obsolete by the midrange E6600 for only ~1/3 the price, and AMD had to make some DEEP price cuts to compete. It also made Apple drop IBM's PowerPC for Core 2 to use in their computers. Core 2 was a huge commercial success and got the ball rolling again on Intel being the dominant processor manufacturer even today, I'd say that's a breakthrough.

It was a breakthrough only because Intel stubbornly stayed with the P4 for so long. They had the Pentium M tech forever, it was no secret that PM was better for YEARS before C2D came out. C2D is a awesome tech, no doubt. I just disagree with calling it a breakthrough when Intel was sitting on that tech for years, and then migrated it to the desktop later. The loser in it all is AMD since they knew of the Pentium M several years before C2D was released, they should have saw it coming that Intel was going to polish that up and then spank them with it on the desktop.

 

[Avalon]

Yep, still running an E8400 @ 4ghz. Holding out for an Ivy bridge. Just recently upgraded my Radeon 4850 to a Geforce 560, and games are still running smooth.

 

[blckgrffn]

Yep, still running an E8400 @ 4ghz. Holding out for an Ivy bridge. Just recently upgraded my Radeon 4850 to a Geforce 560, and games are still running smooth.

Man, I bet anything seems fast after 280 beers!

 

[aigomorla]

i have 2 QX's still online.

QX9650 @ HTPC duty inside a itx board and htpc case.... havent required more power then a yorkfield for htpc duty....

QX9770 @ Office duty, and whats sad is i think its faster then the mail server the company i work at still uses as server duty....

 

[videogames101]

Oh herro there.

Q9550 is SO baller.

 

[Big Lar]

My main box is my Q9650 humping along at a tad under 4100, been running it at that for a long time, probably be another year before I change it out.

Larry

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Sort of. Have an E5200 @ 4GHz in my only Hackintosh, so I guess you could say it's my main OSX rig.

 

[DirkGently1]

Hopefully i'll still be using my QX9650 for many more years to come. My rig is more than powerful enough for what i do with it, and it's the SSD not CPU that makes it a pleasure to use after all these years.

I question the sanity of anybody who has upgraded from Socket 775 and still uses a HDD as a primary drive though.

 

[IGemini]

^^Yes, for those like me still rocking the Core 2 tech, an SSD is probably the best upgrade you can do, assuming you already have everything else where you want it. I know a lot of people decry Sandforce drives, but I went with the 25nm Corsair Force (since I never put my comp in low power and wanted some space). Zune starts in two seconds. In Skyrim, I only have 5-10 seconds to wait from load to start playing. As long as I don't put the computer to sleep, it should keep working just as well. SSD pricing is much better than it was, though I guess I could've rationalized waiting a little longer, especially with the current state of HDD pricing.

Not many things are CPU-bound. I could max out my OC to 4GHz and be within arm's reach of SB in most circumstances, but I wouldn't usually see that improvement. Admittedly there are a few new features in Sandy Bridge I would like, the biggest being QuickSync. But they need to work out the kinks first. I built my brother a new 2500K build and got to toy with it for a bit to make sure everything was solid. I used a good platter drive, and while snappy, it didn't feel much faster than my computer in terms of overall performance. He used MediaEspresso to encode a couple bluray rips for me. I use MPC Homecinema which gets excellent DXVA performance, but these movies were completely unplayable. I needed something like KMPLayer to view them, but it was too buggy in other regards. Not a lot of programs make use of the newer features, and I don't see much reason to use a media player that necessitates error correction of all things.

It was a breakthrough only because Intel stubbornly stayed with the P4 for so long. They had the Pentium M tech forever, it was no secret that PM was better for YEARS before C2D came out. C2D is a awesome tech, no doubt. I just disagree with calling it a breakthrough when Intel was sitting on that tech for years, and then migrated it to the desktop later. The loser in it all is AMD since they knew of the Pentium M several years before C2D was released, they should have saw it coming that Intel was going to polish that up and then spank them with it on the desktop.

Fair enough. Despite how much time there was from Pentium M to Core 2, Intel ultimately did something with it in their (most?) important market: desktops.

 

[Denithor]

Still using an e8400 in my gaming rig (not that it gets much use these days) and 'stuck in the middle' with an i3 550 in my HTPC.

Thinking I'll get my first true quad when Ivy launches.

 

[pauldun170]

My main rig is Q9550 + Gigabyte ep45-ud3p + GTX-570 hooked up to a 24inch monitor.
Its even running at stock speed.
I do have a newer i3-2100\z68 system that I use for transcoding\htpc stuff and its probably a better gaming processor but the q9550 is snappier in general usage.

 

[formulav8]

Still socket 775 here as well. Q9450 @ 2.66ghz 12MB cache, Gigabyte DS3L P35 mobo, and 8GB of DDR2 ram. No real desire to upgrade. I'm not a zealetta like I used to be.

 

[moparacer]

My Core 2 E6750 @ 3.2ghz is still kicking strong. Paired with 4GB of RAM and a Radeon 5850, it's served me pretty well. It's starting to show it's age though.

I am still on a patch work 775 system with a IP35E mobo, E7400 cpu and a 9600GT.

I dont game on this machine so its plenty good enough for websurfing.

 

[T_Yamamoto]

yep. still got this pos dell pentium D

1 gb of ram

 

[sham63]

I am using a Q8200 at 2.33 ghz(stock). I use this for gaming, along with a gtx460 (previously a gts250). Still seems to run games ok.