thinktwice, on 01 January 2012 - 06:50 AM, said:
nooo don't buy another cpu especially if you can oc it well
its a quad core and 99 of the actual games runs really well on a quad core cpu. I can assure u that if you can oc it 34-36 ghz you'll be fine at least for games
I guess that my experience with this CPU is worthless...
It is obvious that having 3xGTX470 on this CPU was a bottleneck but I had bough the 3rd card thinking to go for what is Sandybridge-E now that I taught was getting out last year.
Still consider that my performance gain in going to a new cpu is more than 3 times more fps (so it would help for even a single card config: the new games are CPU huggers...
It is true that a Quad core is good for 99% of all games but here we talk about the very first quad core cpu intel have ever made: it's microarchitechture is 64 nm...more than twice the Sandybridge one...(32 nm) The size does not really matter when it comes to clock vs clock but the fact that the instructions have evolved makes the sandybridge cpu 17% faster than the previsou Lynnfield (Nehalem microarchitechture) and this microarchitechture was 10-25% faster than the previous one which makes is 28% to 46% faster when it comes to clock per clock.
Taking this in consideration, a Q6600 running at 3.6 GHz would be the equivalent to an i5-2500K running at 2.46-2.8 GHz
Now this is just speculations but take my Cinebench results on my Q6700 @ 3.7125 GHz: 4.00 points: that's (4.00/3.7125/4 points per GHz) = 0.2693 points per GHz
On the i7-3930K: 14.43 points @ 5.00 GHz gives 0.481 points per GHz: My point is made... 54% faster clock per clock...
These are rough maths: there are other variables in those things like HT but my point is not to set the exact enhancement % but to demonstrate that the GHz on the Q6600 might not be worth the overclock trouble if you consider the poor gain afterwards...
I would suggest a CPU upgrade at this point...
something around i5-2500 would make wonders compared to an overclock
1
