Originally posted by: cab00se
I'm in pretty much the same boat. I'll definitely be upgrading to an 8800GT ASAP, but the question still remains whether or not it's worth the dough to put together a completely new system based around C2D or C2Q. No one's really answered the OP's original question: just how much performance difference can we expect to see going from an Athlon64 to a multicore Intel? How about an OCed Athlon64 (say 2.5GHz)? With so many goodies like Assassin's Creed and Crysis finally here, I'm itching to know whether or not my rig will make the grade! Pending that vid card upgrade, of course.
I think I'm pretty well qualified to try answer the question. I went from AMD AthlonXP (2.2GHz) / 1GB to Athlon64 (2.4GHz) / 1GB to Opteron 165 (2.8GHz) / 2GB and now to Intel Q6600 (3.4GHz) / 4GB. All of the overclocked, I odn't know if that floats your boat or not though. What I will say is that going from Athlon to Athlon64 yielded not much difference and then from Athlon64 (single core) to Opteron (dual core) obviously improved things, but again, not as much as I had been led to believe.
However, moving from the Opteron 165 (overclocked to 2.8GHz, remember) to Q6600, well the jump in performance has been pretty astonishing. At least I have been seriously impressed, this is also including a move to Vista x64 (gotta make full use of that RAM) from Windows XP, which most people will say that Vista is slower than Windows XP and uses more resources. I'm still extremely impressed with the performance.
For example, while stress testing my system using Prime95 (v25.5, utilizing all 4 cores to 100%, small FFT - max CPU), I was still able to do everything that I used to do on my Opteron and it still felt faster. I had Firefox open, browsing about 20 or so tabs, playing Football Manager 2008, watching a video. For some strange reason it felt like it completely vindicated my decision to get this new setup (Q6600 / Motherboard / RAM - I kept everything else from the old setup).
Hope that helps.