CPU Advise please -- Quad or not to Quad

Hey Guys

I have had some brilliant help from people here and again i turn to you all for advice

I have spotted http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/New-Intel-Quad-core-Q9200-QAVS-2-4G-better-than-Q9100_W0QQitemZ260418165011QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item3ca221d913&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1683%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318%7C301%3A1%7C293%3A1%7C294%3A50

I have a 8600 @ 2.4 which i can clock to 2.97ghz atm and get 13490 on 3dmark06

my question is really would this

a) be a good upgrade on what i have
b) be much of a difference between the 9300
c) be worthwhile or is there something better in the lines?

Thanks to all of ya

Pete

 

a) depends on the purpose. some games cannot take advantage of quadcores, some can. in general though, things should be faster, yes.
b) the difference is .13Ghz
c) the only better quadcore right now is the aforementioned qx9300. depending on the purpose, some dualcores (X9100 at 3.06Ghz stock) may be better as well.

 

It wouldn't be a bad upgrade. At the very least you'll be playing games at the same performance you do now....and better if the game supports 4 cores.

 

not necessarily - performance in older games will only be equal if he can OC to 2.97Ghz again, which isn't guaranteed.

 

lol yeh true point b

It is a fairly easy install on a the M17 as far as i can see. I shouldnt be missing out on too much performance, i am guessing that i can clock the 9200 to the same as the 9300 anyway.

Ok another question, is this a safe (well as safe as it can be i know its not OEM) buy, i mean stepping/ES wise. You guys know far more then me

Pete

 

True. Depends on the quality of the ES. I'm basing my assumption on KN selling their Q9200s overclocked at 2.93Ghz

 

if your going to play GTA4 and some upcoming games later in 2009, get the quad...i would rec a ebay qx9300...flash bios to ocz .28..and OC to 3.0 to 3.2ghz easily

 

long run i think halo is right its a safer bet then a ES 9200

i have nothing against 9200's or Es , just that m17 owners can do the bios overclock and it makes it much easier

 

So opinions: QS QX9300 or OEM for the $160 more?

 

i like OEM for the warranty because i wouldn't wanna pay for a new one

 

It's an OEM from China though.

 

...thats not OEM .....

 

ES will be fine IMO

 

I'd personally go for a quad. But then, that's because I play games optimised for quad cores/multi cores-and those that aren't run fine on 2GHz of processing power.

 

excuse me but what is ES may I ask?

 

ES means engineering sample.

 

^^^correct

 

Are you experiencing any stuttering or other issues with your dual core?

My X9100 clocks happily to 3.57.

 

would be higher if you had OCZ bios ...... you could push it over 4 ghz

 

Hmm,

I think I'd be able to get the X9100 record on Orb doing that.

 

nah im using the aw bios as i dont have the extreme cpu

but nope, no stuttering on the cpu or anything, just push it over 2.97 and it reboots

Pete

 

I was trying to be polite as possible, but I was eluding to the fact that so many quad owners have had problems. I've seen it here, OC forums, Killer Notebook forums and everywhere else. It's not just on the M17, it's on all the rebrands if this chassis with the quads.

Many have seemed to be able to repair them, but IMO, you shouldn't have to make modifications to be able to enjoy stability with a quad.

No offense quad owners.

 

hehe i need more coffee for ur posts rob

 

Just a follow up, ES has different stages. Try to shoot for a QS if not OEM, supposely its the same thing minus the labeling...I think.

 

I was looking at the new M17x, trying to decide between the 2.8 duo and the 2.0 quad, for future use or even resale value... tough decision..

 

I'd personally go for a much higher clocked duo, but it seems a lot of people on the forums rather get the 2.0 quad. It's all preference really. If you only game, a quad isn't going to net better performance vs a duo that's much faster.

 

yeh from reseach i have been doing a faster duo ie 2.8+ is better then the 2.4/2.53 quad as 99% of games etc dont support quads

 

ugh the 2.53 quad is worth it because you can overclock

 

overclock a quad that does not have programs to take advantage of it...??

 

lmao you really need to re think that

a 3.0 ghz quad is equal to a 3 ghz dual in most games

OOOO and the extra 2 cores for what ever.

so 2 extra cores to use while gaming higher cache and higher cache

 

Bu b b b b b but s s so many people have had to break out the surgical gloves and different bios' just to get rid of the i i i i i issues!

I think the decision to offer a quad in this chassis was premature and not fully tested. So far, there has been no oem solution to the problems.

IMO, a fast dual core is a much better option, costs less, and is issue free!

 

unless you play gta4....which gets like a 50% boost in framerate with a quad....expect many upcoming games to be like this also as we get more and more sh**** console ports

 

In my opinion, a quad is the way to go. I'm not sure how the 2.0GHz Q9000 does (I'll find out when my laptop arrives, lol) but the quad in my desktop, even before I overclocked it to 2.67GHz...even things not optimised for quads would run perfectly on it. Crysis/Warhead/Wars all run without ever using up more than 70% on it and they all split well so I'm expecting no problems from the Q9000 on that end. I guess that apart from those, I don't play many high intensity games (the only other really intense game I play only really uses 1 core but the core still never reaches 100%). Once I get my laptop I plan on overclocking the Q9000 to around the 2.4GHz point, at which point it should play everything well, quad optimized or not.

The unfortunate thing is I've heard quite a lot of trouble with stuttering with some people on every variant of the OCZ barebone that the M17 uses. People have as far as I'm aware have found a northbridge copper mod completely fixes it, however that may not be a good idea for you to go through if you're not too confident with computer parts.

 

Good point Halo,

Hopefully they will all go to using 4 cores at some point.

Console ports.:SLEEP:

 

There are literally only a FEW games out there that can benefit from quad-cores on a Core2 CPU - some console ports (e.g., GTA4) and maybe 2 others (e.g., Supreme Commander). Otherwise, it's better to get faster-clocked dual-cores. Not only that, but quads will also run hotter and use more power. For max performance on the vast majority of current games, I would maybe consider something like the new T9900 or P9700. I bet those would be very overclockable (and the T9900 uses less power than the X9100).

 

Yes, but the extra 9 watts on the X9100 must be doing something.

Maybe it provides the necessary power the effectively OC to 3.57 like I do.

 

lol rob the t9900 can overclock just about as high as you

its just the multipliers are locked