I feel like I've asked this question before???

In any case, I've got a Dell Optiplex 755. It's a great little machine.

It currently has an Intel E6850 3.0ghz Core 2 Duo vPro w/ 4mb of cache @ 1,333mhz FSB on a LGA775 socket.


I really like this little machine, but I need a little bit more power for some of the games that have come out from 2005-2009. My graphics card is decent, so that's not the problem.

I'm thinking about upgrading, so I discovered that the fastest Core 2 Duo is a 3.33ghz, w/ 6mb of L2 cache. I then realized that I could probably upgrade to a Core 2 Quad, or a Core 2 Extreme? This machine lists two Core 2 Quads, however they are both at 1066mhz FSB? (I assume this doesn't make a difference?)

With that said, I believe that I can upgrade to a faster processor, and that I should easily be able to drop in a Core 2 Quad or Core 2 Extreme at 1333fsb. (no intentions of overclocking).

I understand the difference between the chips, but what I want to know is, will a 4 core processor actually be faster than the core 2 processor for 95% of the stuff that I'll be doing? So for example, if I play the game Medal of Honor Airborne, will it be faster on a Core 2 Quad 2.66mhz, or will it be faster on a Core 2 Duo 3.0ghz?

Also on a side note, the Core 2 Quad is a 4 mb L2 cache, which means each core gets 2 mb. So if I got a Core 2 Quad, I would need at least an 8mb L2 cache processor for the cache to be at least identical to what my Core 2 has? So if I got a Core 2 Quad w/ 12mb L2 cache that would give me 3mb cache per core...


Thanks!!!

Todd

http://www.tomshardware.com...-benchmark,2974.html

It all depends on if the application can take advantage of multi-core CPUs.
That's becoming more and more common these days.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: http://www.tomshardware.com...-benchmark,2974.html It all depends on if the application can take advantage of multi-core CPUs. That's becoming more and more common these days.

Thanks Formula... on one of the last pages of that link from Tom's Hardware, it shows the graphs, and I can see a very clear difference between the 3.0 (what I have) and the 3.33ghz which is the highest Core 2 Duo that's being offered. It looks like the individual speed of the cores is pretty critical, rather than necessarily how many cores it has (when it's not sure if the additional cores will even be supported). I assume that Windows 7-64 is smart enough to ship off background processes to the 2nd core (or 3rd core as the case might be) from the 1st core, so the game can focus on the 1st core. It looks like if I want to upgrade to a Core 2 Quad or a Core 2 Extreme, I'll have to make sure that I get something that is AT LEAST 3 ghz, (preferably a 3.16 or 3.33) and it must have more than 2mb of L2 cache per core, or I wouldn't really see any kind of improvement.

Thanks for the info!

quote Originally posted by Formula88: It all depends on if the application can take advantage of multi-core CPUs.

that sums it up right there, all depends how the game was written.. some games will run 2x as fast with the quadcore, others will run slower due to the slower clock speeds... alot of "current" games are written to take advantage of 2 cores, but almost ignore theother 2.. thats changing now tho, they will take advantage of everycore you have avail...

I've had my Core 2 Duo 3 GHz processor overclocked to 3.84 for several years now with no overkill cooling and nary a hiccup.
Plays all games cranked up to full, rock solid.
Very easy overclock.

Motherboard - EVGA 750i SLi FTW
Processor - Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 Wolfdale 3.0GHz @ 3.8GHz
CPU Cooler - Asus Silent Square
Memory - 8 Gigs OCZ Platinum 1066MHz PC2 8500
Videocards - Dual-EVGA GTX-275 896MB Superclocked
Powersupply - Corsair TX750watt @ Single 60amp 12v Rail
Monitor - Viewsonic 22" LCD
Soundcard - Creative Sound Blaster Audigy 2 Platinum
Chassis - CoolerMaster Stacker 830
Operating System - Windows 7 Pro

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 07-29-2011).]

Not to knock any previous post, but like money I only take advice from people with it... I can tag this thread in the AM, if you'dlike. I think only 2 people here have equal or greater systems.

I haven't built an Intel system in years. Do they still base the memory bus off the FSB? If so, then the FSB speed will make a difference. If you downgrade from 1333MHz to 1066MHz FSB, your memory performance will take a hit. Even if your motherboard can adjust memory speed separately from the FSB speed, you're still going to take a performance hit, because the two are not synchronized. Your 1333MHz system RAM will be waiting for the 1066MHz FSB to catch up to it.

To make a long story short, if your system is setup for 1333MHz FSB, then the safe bet would be stick with that on your new processor.

As mentioned above, more CPU cores will be helpful if you regularly use multi-threaded software, and/or if you are a heavy multi-tasker, and/or if your computer has a bunch of stuff running in the background. A quick Google search should reveal if the software and games you use are multi-threaded.

quote Originally posted by ls3mach: Not to knock any previous post, but like money I only take advice from people with it... I can tag this thread in the AM, if you'dlike. I think only 2 people here have equal or greater systems.

So you never take advice then?

Brad

ive built plenty of "gaming" rigs in my day, several watercooled, i dont current have a gamer system, but have a badass workstation, few poweredge servers 2 homemade amd servers, media box, and my desktop

quote Originally posted by Blacktree: I haven't built an Intel system in years. Do they still base the memory bus off the FSB? If so, then the FSB speed will make a difference. If you downgrade from 1333MHz to 1066MHz FSB, your memory performance will take a hit. Even if your motherboard can adjust memory speed separately from the FSB speed, you're still going to take a performance hit, because the two are not synchronized. Your 1333MHz system RAM will be waiting for the 1066MHz FSB to catch up to it. To make a long story short, if your system is setup for 1333MHz FSB, then the safe bet would be stick with that on your new processor. As mentioned above, more CPU cores will be helpful if you regularly use multi-threaded software, and/or if you are a heavy multi-tasker, and/or if your computer has a bunch of stuff running in the background. A quick Google search should reveal if the software and games you use are multi-threaded.

Well, I think for the series of processors we're talking about, they are... however, I think they eliminated that with the new series of processors i3-i7.

I think it sounds like what I want to do is to find a Core 2 Extreme w/12mb L2 cache (so I know I'm getting at least 3mb per core), and at 1333mhz FSB.

Actually, I don't think my RAM is actually the same speed as my processor. I'm going to reset and check the BIOS to find out.


Hah... man, I'm emberassed. I knew my ram speed was lower than what my FSB supported, but I just looked and it's running at 677mhz. I have THREE 2 gig chips in there. Two of them are from TEAM w/ heat sinks, at 800mhz, and then I've got one from DELL (which came with the system) which is apparently running at 677mhz. I think I probably knew this at one point, but figured the extra 2 gigs of ram would still make the computer run a bit faster than it otherwise would with only 4 gigs running at 800mhz.

Man...

I'm going to have to really consider if it's worth upgrading the machine. For $400 bucks, I can probably get another Dell machine that already has a Quad-Core, and 1066mhz ram.


Ok, I just bought two of these suckers: http://www.newegg.com/Produ...Item=N82E16820104073

It's actually 4 chips... 2 gigs each, at 1066mhz from Kingston. It's dual-channel memory. It will fill all four slots, and I'll end up with 8 gigs of ram instead of 6. Total cost was $119 shipped. Didn't really want to spend the money, but I didn't even remember how slow the chips were. The other two 2-gig chips are still decent enough at 800mhz so I can put those in my wife's computer which I think has a Pentium D 3.4ghz, which only has an 800mhz FSB anyway... so those chips will be an improvement on her machine over the 677mhz chips she has now. And then the other ram chips, I can just stick in my daughter's machine... and who knows, I'll just sell all the other ram chips on eBay or something... hah.

Now I just need to get a processor, and I should be good...

[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 07-30-2011).]

You may not even need a new processor. I'm willing to bet that slow-ass RAM was holding your system back.

quote Originally posted by Blacktree: You may not even need a new processor. I'm willing to bet that slow-ass RAM was holding your system back.

Yeah, you're probably right. I also just noticed that my BIOS was a year outdated... I decided to check the DELL website and reflashed my BIOS. Strangely enough, when I updated my BIOS from one that was from 2010 to one that was 2011... it actually improved my performance index???






Thought that was kind of cool!

I have an Optiplex 745 and it has been more than great.
If you upgrade I would be interested in your old processor, would be an upgrade for me.
And would ease the wallet for your upgrade.
Think I have the correct socket.

Dell Optiplex was not sold as Gamer but Business class system. Business workload is much different. You can use it an gamer machine but not made for that kind of load and even upgrade to max, any Optiplex will not be a best gamer machine.

How much RAM? Low RAM for application will slow down machine with any CPU.

Check speed of ram... Dell is good at matching speed ram and CPU but check anyway. (HP is great an putting slow ram and hamstring CPU as a result.) Get CPUz from CPUID and see what ram timing is.

Blacktree has it backward I think.... Or maybe He's thinking RAMbus memory. RAMbus is less tolerate FSB clock. Optiplex 755 uses DDR 2. (Dell uses RAMbus in Precision workstation and some Optiplex.)

If RAM max speed is faster than FSB.... No Problem... DDR Ram can take multiple speeds and system will be fine. (Check CPUz, tabs Memory & SPD)

If RAM max speed is slower than FSB... entire system will suffer.

Which Video? Gaming bottle neck maybe Video not CPU.

Which HD? HD can slow down whole machine. Interface is SATA 1.5 Gbps and 3.0 Gbps. Get a faster SATA2 HD.
------------------
Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.
(Jurassic Park)

The Ogre's Fiero Cave (It's also at the top and bottom of every forum page...)

[This message has been edited by theogre (edited 07-30-2011).]

most dell HP or other majors come with junk M/B for overclocking
they are very limited in or LOCKED BIOS options
but try it and see if you can do anything

I would swap M/B rather then chips and O/C the current chip to 3.6 -3.8
few games need 4 cores vs more clock speed on 2

btw I paid 280 for a 4core 6600 CDQ system used about a year ago

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

quote Originally posted by ls3mach: Not to knock any previous post, but like money I only take advice from people with it... I can tag this thread in the AM, if you'dlike. I think only 2 people here have equal or greater systems.

The article I posted shows how different core architecture affects performance on a clock for clock bases per core. If your app only uses 1 core, that's all that matters. If it can use more cores, even a lower multi-core CPU would be faster. That's how AMD is competing right now. Their CPUs aren't as fast as current Intel chips, but they can give you more cores for the same price.

If it gives any credibility to the Toms Hardware link, my system is a Sandy Bridge i5 2500k, 8GB RAM and a Radeon 6950 video card.

These results are just my baseline at stock settings. I still need to tweak the RAM timings to get those up a bit and swap out my Raptor RAID0 boot drives for SSD. There's plenty of OC headroom to raise the CPU score.

It doesn't sound like you need a full on gaming rig, just a more powerful computer that can play games.. I recommend this, then later on you can upgrade the graphics card...

http://www.newegg.com/Produ...x-_-index-_-83113175

quote Originally posted by theogre: Dell Optiplex was not sold as Gamer but Business class system. Business workload is much different. You can use it an gamer machine but not made for that kind of load and even upgrade to max, any Optiplex will not be a best gamer machine. How much RAM? Low RAM for application will slow down machine with any CPU. Check speed of ram... Dell is good at matching speed ram and CPU but check anyway. (HP is great an putting slow ram and hamstring CPU as a result.) Get CPUz from CPUID and see what ram timing is. Blacktree has it backward I think.... Or maybe He's thinking RAMbus memory. RAMbus is less tolerate FSB clock. Optiplex 755 uses DDR 2. (Dell uses RAMbus in Precision workstation and some Optiplex.) If RAM max speed is faster than FSB.... No Problem... DDR Ram can take multiple speeds and system will be fine. (Check CPUz, tabs Memory & SPD) If RAM max speed is slower than FSB... entire system will suffer. Which Video? Gaming bottle neck maybe Video not CPU. Which HD? HD can slow down whole machine. Interface is SATA 1.5 Gbps and 3.0 Gbps. Get a faster SATA2 HD.

Thanks Ogre, I appreciate the advice. The machine is pretty decent right now for what I need... I don't really play the latest and greatest games, and to be honest, I don't really play a lot of games anyway. I just like having an all-around decent machine.

The hard drive I've got in here is actually a 2.5 laptop hard drive to save power usage. It's a Seagate Hybrid 500gig hard drive. It's got that 16 gigs of solid state cache on it. It's Sata 2, and maxes out the speed of the motherboard. The motherboard doesn't support SATA 3.

The graphics card is a 128-Bit Sapphire w/ 512mbs of DDR3 ram (decent enough).

I've got the new ram on the way, and I think a Core 2 Extreme would max out this machine for a little while. I should be good for 2 years without needing / wanting anything more...