E6750 vs Q6600 vs Penryn

[Skooter]

I'm currently putting together a new general/home/gaming rig...budget is roughly 1200 not including monitor.

My current rig is an overclocked P4 2.6c @ 3.2 that has lasted me over 4 years. Still runs like a dream, although newer games are definitely at their limit on low settings at this point. It's time to upgrade. I will be overclocking again.

I'm not worried about running games on max settings...FPS are important to me so long as it looks halfway decent.

I like to get the most time out of my purchases, and I'm curious as to what everyone thinks is the better buy at this point given where things are going in the next year or two. I probably won't upgrade again for another 2-3 years at least.

All input is welcome...let the debate begin

 

[myocardia]

...

 

[4x4expy]

Originally posted by: myocardia
change either the motherboard, or the processor, and you'll have to buy Vista again.

What does this mean? I still use XP but will probably move to Vista in the next year or so.

 

[beatle]

Originally posted by: 4x4expy

Originally posted by: myocardia
change either the motherboard, or the processor, and you'll have to buy Vista again.

What does this mean? I still use XP but will probably move to Vista in the next year or so.

That's not true. What it means is that Vista will think you've changed machines and will prompt you to reactivate. You can do this over the phone with MS in 5 minutes.

 

[myocardia]

...

 

[4x4expy]

I'll definitely look into this before buying Vista. I have XP PRO that I bought ~4yr ago. I have reinstalled it several times and used in my last few builds(on install at a time of course). The last couple installs I had to call MS to reactivate, but have never been given a problem. If Vista is going to be disposable after an upgrade, I'll have to weigh my options for sure.

 

[myocardia]

...

 

[Denithor]

In your shoes, with a P4 system today, I would probably go for a Penryn-capable motherboard (the abit IP35-E is good for OC and cheap), 2GB DDR2 RAM and a cpu from either the e21x0 or e6x50 series ($100 difference buys you a 1MB->4MB cache increase, both OC to about the same point). Then upgrade just the cpu late next year to a quad Penryn which should last probably two years. Toss an 8800GT, a solid power supply and whatever HDD/DVD/etc into a case that makes you happy and you're good to go.

Here are some starter ideas:

abit IP35-E + e2180 + 2GB DDR2 for $220 + shipping
-or-
abit IP35-E + e6750 + 2GB DDR2 for $325 + shipping
Thermaltake 500W power supply for $40 shipped after MIR

Pick up a factory OC 8800GT for ~$250 once the price gouging dies down a bit. All told you can do this (even with the e6750) for probably about $800 (or less depending on what you can recycle from your old box).

 

[BladeVenom]

If you get Vista get the upgrade verion, and not the OEM version. OEM is tied to one motherboard, even though a lot of people are able to skate by that.

 

[clickynext]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: 4x4expy

Originally posted by: myocardia
change either the motherboard, or the processor, and you'll have to buy Vista again.

What does this mean? I still use XP but will probably move to Vista in the next year or so.

Well, it means exactly what is says. Change either your processor or motherboard, and Vista no longer works, until you buy Vista again.

Originally posted by: beatle
That's not true. What it means is that Vista will think you've changed machines and will prompt you to reactivate. You can do this over the phone with MS in 5 minutes.

Try calling them up, and not lying, and see what happens.

I just changed my mobo, proc, vid card, and ram. Called MS to activate it and had no problems (other than being on hold for way too long).

 

[myocardia]

...

 

[clickynext]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: clickynext
I just changed my mobo, proc, vid card, and ram. Called MS to activate it and had no problems (other than being on hold for way too long).

Are you saying that you weren't asked whether you had changed any hardware? If so, I find that very hard to believe, since they even ask that with XP.

I wasn't asked whether I had changed hardware, I was asked how many computers my copy of windows was installed on, to which I truthfully answered "1".

 

[Skooter]

Thanks for the replies.

How large is the performance hit going from 4mb cache to 1mb?

 

[supaxi]

I have the retail boxed version of Vista Ultimate (I actually use some of the Ultimate features) and I have re-installed several times on new hardware with no problem. I talk to the nice girl in India an tell her that I got a new motherboard or processor and she re-activates me.

You only run into problems if you buy the OEM version.

 

[gingerstewart55]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: 4x4expy

Originally posted by: myocardia
change either the motherboard, or the processor, and you'll have to buy Vista again.

What does this mean? I still use XP but will probably move to Vista in the next year or so.

Well, it means exactly what is says. Change either your processor or motherboard, and Vista no longer works, until you buy Vista again.

Originally posted by: beatle
That's not true. What it means is that Vista will think you've changed machines and will prompt you to reactivate. You can do this over the phone with MS in 5 minutes.

Try calling them up, and not lying, and see what happens.

I have, twice, didn't have to lie because I did change the motherboard twice, have this copy of Vista Ultimate installed on one machine.....and it was reactivated in less than two minutes.

So, what's the problem? Or are you just bent because you've been trying to reactivate your hacked, downloaded, pirated version and have been denied over and over?

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: Skooter
How large is the performance hit going from 4mb cache to 1mb?

Take a look at the UT3 benchmarks here and here for an idea of relative processor speed in a cpu bound test which may not be representative of actual gaming conditions.

AT concludes:

On the Intel side, the sweet spot for performance looks to be the Core 2 Duo E6550, or if you want to go cheaper, the E4500. Remember what we discovered about the impact of L2 cache on performance: you need around 20% more clocks to make up for a 2MB L2 deficit on Intel's CPUs, and about 35% to make up for a 3MB deficit.

This being said, most people are easily able to OC the e21x0 chips to around 3GHz which tends to offset the low cache. Of course, the e4x00/e6x50 chips will also OC to this level (or higher if you have good cooling) meaning they would still have an edge.

I personally would go with an e2180, OC to about 3GHz and be happy with saving $100 to put toward a Penryn quadcore mid to late next year.

Even with the reduced cache a stock e2180 will outperform your P4 single core easily in games let alone once you OC it a bit. Check out the early C2D benchmarks here and here to see how even the e6300 (2MB cache 1.86GHz) smokes the 3.6GHz dual-core Pentium D-960 and in most cases even the dual-core Pentium XE 965 (4MB cache 3.73GHz). This is why no one ever benchmarks against the old Netburst-based chips anymore, they just can't hold up against either the AMD X2 or the Intel C2D processors.