Is this a no brainer? Q6600 --> i3 2100

[slayer202]

microcenter has a combo deal ending today, $160 for the i3 2100 and a mobo(nothing special I'm sure)

right now I've got a Q6600 and a gigabyte p35 ds3l(dd2 ram)


It seems like the i3 is faster than the q6600 and a cheap new motherboard should still be way better than my current. Is there anything I'm missing before I got make this purchase? Is it not as clear of an upgrade as I'm seeing? I can sell my current stuff for a good majority of the new component cost

 

[Necc]

definitely go for it.

 

[soccerballtux]

no buy amd

 

[universeis42]

You'll just need to buy DDR3 RAM along with it.

 

[infoiltrator]

I've only seen one review on the 2100, that says do it!

DDR3 is reasonable, 2x2 4 gb from $40. Let us know you experience.

huh AMD 955 $140 yO JO=KE yes?
Sugguested price I3 2100 is about $120 lowest I've seen MB is $100.

 

[slayer202]

I guess I should do it? thanks for all the comments, feel free to keep em coming

 

[postmortemIA]

cut number of cores? and get better performance. I disagree. I would do real upgrade, which is same or more cores and same or more of clock speed.

 

[Markfw]

I wouldn't say a no brainer. I checked the benchmarks, and the Q6600 wins quite a few.

What does it NOT do for you well ? And what do you do with the box ?

 

[slayer202]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/53?vs=289

looking at that, the i3 is better at just about everything, some by a wide margin. q6600 barely wins a couple

nothing wrong with my performance now but it seems like an upgrade(maybe not a HUGE one) for very little money(close to nothing factoring in my $20 microcenter gift card)

I would imagine the newer mobo has some features I don't currently have as well. plus dd3.

for the money, or lack of, it seems clear? but I don't know too much

 

[Termie]

In general, the i3-2100 beats a q9550: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sandy-bridge-core-i7-2600k-core-i5-2500k,2833-12.html. So yes, it's faster than a q6600. But it's not a no-brainer. In some applications, it will lose badly (check handbrake bench at bottom of page): http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sandy-bridge-core-i7-2600k-core-i5-2500k,2833-17.html.

If you can stretch the budget, the 2400 is a much better long-term upgrade. Motherboards are cheap, starting at $70. These would be non-overclocking H61 boards (which is what the MC deal includes, I'm sure), but the 2100 doesn't overclock anyway. H67 are much more expensive but you won't need that anyway.

Going to DDR3 doesn't do anything on its own - you already see the benefits in the benchmarks, if there is one. I vote no on this one.

2400 is $150 at MC: http://www.microcenter.com/single_pr...uct_id=0358220.

For $220, that's a no-brainer over $160 for 2100.

 

[slayer202]

Ahh, theres always "well you should spend more money and get this" lol. I guess I can go with the i5

 

[postmortemIA]

Most application that are multi-core aware are also doing quad core scaling very well. Not to mention that Windows 7 OS loves quad-core. All benches that show your i3 being faster are not optimized for multi-core.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Going from a quad-core to a dual-core? No way. Overclock your Q6600, or go for an i5 quad-core. Don't mess around with "wimpy" duals anymore.

 

[slayer202]

i5 it is then

Thanks for the guidance

 

[Markfw]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/53?vs=289

looking at that, the i3 is better at just about everything, some by a wide margin. q6600 barely wins a couple

nothing wrong with my performance now but it seems like an upgrade(maybe not a HUGE one) for very little money(close to nothing factoring in my $20 microcenter gift card)

I would imagine the newer mobo has some features I don't currently have as well. plus dd3.

for the money, or lack of, it seems clear? but I don't know too much

It wins 10 by my count. But I agree I5 is way better.

Edit: The higher vs lower got me,I think its 5.

 

[slayer202]

Picked up the i5 now to look for a deal on ram