Need advice.

[volk-19]

I want to compare 2 processors and figure out which one is more powerful and faster for gaming. Here they are: Intel® Core™ i7-920 Processor and Intel® Core™2 Quad Processor Q9650

And here is the Intel link: http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=37147,35428,

I’m asking about their performances. To me, the i7-920 seems better then the Q9650, only 2.66 GHz is what I’m worrying about. So I need your advice and will appreciate it.

Thank you.

[Migo]

The i7 920 is better.

Needs only slightly changes in Bios to have it running at 3.4 Ghz.

Then it's performance is the same as this expensive boy

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=5077737&CatId=4074

 

If you have a god CPU fan you can overclock further to 3.6/3.8 Ghz.

Watercooled even 3.4/4.2 Ghz. The Q9650 won't go that high.

 

Besides that, the new i7 architecture is way better then the one of the Q9650.

Also core i7 has a newer 1366 socket, which means you can use newer components like DDR3 ram.

Edited September 26, 2009 by Migo

[EtherealN]

It's a bit of a double-edged sword this, though: the i7 is definitely better for gaming. But in the case of DCS it gets a bit more hairy - if we make the assumption that you do not want to overclock. (For reasons of not daring to, not having the knowledge, or not wanting to risk voiding warranty.)

 

I would say that most of what I've seen (but I've been out of the loop for a month or two) indicates that for a stock processor you basically end up wanting the higher clock, which would make the E8xxx series by Intel your best option. I've not seen indications that would show the i7 processors to be better per-clock than the Core2 E8xxx chips for DCS when everything else is equal. (Though I can definitely see theoretical causes for the i7's and Q's to perform better in some cases, like being able to spread other OS-related and background processes to other cores, but I am unsure if the nominally higher clock of the E chips counterbalance this.)

 

But all of that aside, both the Q and E chips use a socket that is very much in danger of losing support real soon - especially since with the introduction of the i5 Intel now has no less than three sockets. This means the i7 would win in the eye-to-the-future department. Also, the i7 definitely wins in pretty much all other applications, including most games currently in development, since those are more likely to be tailored to take advantage of multithreading.

 

So my advice would be:

If you are mainly looking to build a regular home system + the ability to play DCS: get a relatively cheap E8xxx system.

If you are looking more towards a powerful general gaming platform: i7.

 

The Q series in my opinion would only be an option if you already have a socket 775 system and is looking to only switch to a new processor - in that case the Q chips would be good for general gaming rigs and the E series for home system + DCS.

 

That aside:

Migo, you do not need socket 1366 for DDR3. Socket 775 boards made for DDR3:

 

ASUS P5E3 PRO

ASUS P5P45TD

ASUS P5Q3

ASUS Rampage Extreme X48

MSI P43-C51

MSI P45 Diamond

MSI X38 Hydrogen

 

There are more, but the point is made: socket 775 does allow for DDR3.

[volk-19]

EtherealN and Migo, thank you for taking time to answer the question and providing me with that helpful info. I got another little one for you.

What is the minimum power supply wattage I need for E8xxx series? I have 420W right now but I’m not sure if it’s going to be enough.

[Ramstein]

I say get a 600 watt of good quality,, a good quality psu costs more, but a crappy psu will can ruin a computer and not last long.. I know that some newer video cards use less power with smaller chips, but when you need more power, you will not worry about needing another psu.. and the psu will work less..

 

 

 

 

IMHO:joystick:

 

I wil upgrade with a new computer in a few months... this one has gotten old and slow..

Edited September 30, 2009 by Ramstein

[EtherealN]

Yeah, I personally use a 630watt PSU, though I would have used my higher-quality 520watt Corsair PSU were it not for the fact that while moving house at some point the crucial (giggle) six-pin PCIe cables had disappeared.

 

The E8xxx chips have TDPs (Thermal Design Power) around 65-85watt, so it's not really the processor that would bug you the most for power supply. (Q series chips I've seen referenced around 100+ watt.) The big thief is the graphics cards of today - my card (a 9800GTX+) has an IDLE consumption that is higher than my processor at load. :P

 

Even then though, I've seen systems almost completely identical to mine get measured to no more than 300-400 watt when under full load. So THEORETICALLY you could do it with the one you have. But in that case you had better pray to whichever gods, athletes or popstars you worship that there is no such thing as wear and tear on your PSU. They do "age", and I've seen articles measuring several percent of decreased capacity on a PSU per year.

 

So for that reason, the PSU you have might work today, and die in two weeks, when running a system that is close to those limits. Being close-to or at capacity of course also increase the strain on the PSU.

 

I should mention that I once had a 400 watt supply, but replaced it with the corsair 520 all the way back when I got myself a GeForce 7800. Why? Because the 400 watt one quite simply blew up when it suddenly had to power a 7800 instead of a 6600... :P

 

Anyway, here's a nifty little tool where you just enter your components and it'll give you estimates of your power needs. Do note the specific warning texts they include, though:

http://www.thermaltake.outervision.com/

Edited October 1, 2009 by EtherealN

[Flyby]

depending on your plans...

 

if you plan to build a rig primarily for gaming I'd say look at the new Lynnfield processors, specifically the i7-860 or -870 processors. They are socket 1166, rather than the i7-920 which is socket 1356. The gaming performance is very close between the two, but the 1156 system is generally considered more for mainstream users, and a bit less expensive. Here is an interesting article about how the new ATi 5870 video card performs on both systems. (If nothing else read the final thoughts, but the whole article is informative)

http://anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3649

hope you find it useful :)

Flyby out

[volk-19]

This is my computer case. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811144158

It got two 80mm fans, one on top and one at rear. Will these fans be enough for quad or i7 processors? Or I need to get new case or bigger fans? (I’m not going to overclock the processor)

Edited October 17, 2009 by volk-19

[sweinhart3]

This is my computer case. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811144158

It got two 80mm fans, one on top and one at rear. Will these fans be enough for quad or i7 processors? Or I need to get new case or bigger fans? (I’m not going to overclock the processor)

 

Yes it will be fine. I run an overclocked QX9750 Extreme and my case has only 1 120mm fan in it. The only 2 parts that generate any real heat to be of concern is the CPU and video card. You dont need a lot of case fans but I would highly suggest a good cpu heatsink/fan. Good ones usually run about $50. Most video cards have adequate cooling without non stock cooling systems unless you plan to overclock it.

 

If you plan to use only 1 video card you can likely get away with a 600W power supply. If you are going to use a low-mid range video card you can get away with a little less. If you plan to use 2 or more video cards you will need 800-1000W power supplies.

 

The cpu question has been mostly answered already but I just wanted to point out a couple other things. Socket 1366 uses 3 channel DDR3 memory, hence the higher pin count. It has been shown if you read some articles that 3 channel memory will give you almost no additional speed boost over 2 channel memory (sockets 775/1156) until you start using 6 core processors (upcoming Clarksdale CPUs). With that said, 4/6 core processors have almost no benefit over 2 core processors unless you are using heavily threaded programs which at this time are far and few. Dual core can be clocked higher than quad core and most programs right now can really only take advantage of 2cores. Hyper threading is a little different since that only doubles logical cores but not physical cores. Intel has basically set a limit on there processors to use no more than 85W. Each core has to share this power which is why the more cores you have, the lower the clock speeds will be. Games like DCS arent multi-threaded and therefore can use the higher clock speeds of a dual core system over a quad or 6 core chip. That might change someday if the Devs implement multi threading, but as of now you will better performance out of a dual core.

[volk-19]

Thank you sweinhart3. Thank you every one. Now I’m pretty much set and know what I want and what I need. I really appreciate your help gentleman.

Edited October 17, 2009 by volk-19

[Flyby]

Thank you sweinhart3. Thank you every one. Now I’m pretty much set and know what I want and what I need. I really appreciate your help gentleman.

don't forget to let us know which way you went. ;)

Flyby out