Upgrading to a Quad Core CPU - How much performance increase?

[Feek]

I'm using a GigaByte 965P-DS3 (http://www.giga-byte.com/Products/Motherboard/Products_Spec.aspx?ProductID=2456) motherboard with a dual core E6600 bug with a 1066 FSB (I think). If I swap that chip for a Q6600 with 1333 FSB, am I going to notice much of a speed increase overall?

I know that specific apps will depend on whether the actual app is multi CPU aware but generally OS wise, will I notice it?

OS being either Vista x64 Ultimate or OS X ;)

And will my current HSF, a Noctua NH-U12F be man enough for the job or should I consider replacing that at the same time?

[Zirax]

sec

edit:-Hit wrong key. In terms of general windows usage, I would have thought not. Unless you are doing intensive photoshop rendering etc. If you are maxing out the CPU then yeah sure. Not much help but the extra FSB will be handy and make a difference. It depends on if you are buying a new chip. Or you could clock your other chip.

The best performance increase comes from upgrading the slowest thing. For example hdds, what are they and how old? Raid or non raid.

----------------
Not thinking this morning, yes the extra on board cache will make more of a difference than the fact that its actually a quad. Unless you are doing folding / rendering

[Feek]

sec

? :confused:

[Feek]

I'm currently overclocked to 3.1GHz and I'm looking at the CPU from OcUK which is guaranteed to hit 3GHz so I'd be running at a similar speed. My main hard drive is a Seagate ST3500320AS which is no slouch.

[Matblack]

If a program is set up to take advantage of it you'll see an improvement but with most things you won't top the speed you get from a Dual. I run a Quad in my media centre with 4Gb and its great, low temps with a mini Sythe Ninja and decent fans (nice and quiet) :) Never caused me any issue at all, however I do not overclock it as I have no need to.

MB

[Feek]

Well I'm spending more and more time in OS X and the Apple hype (http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/multicore.html) seems to indicate that Leopard really does take advantage of the extra cores, and that's what got me thinking about the possible change.

[Mark]

There's a fair chance you'll manage a better overclock with it if that's your thing. Even without the Noctua cooler should do pretty well. And yes, since Apple designed Leopard for dual core it'll certainly take advantage of more than one core much more than Windows will.

I'm not sure I could justify a specific upgrade to a quad, but when designing a new system I'd certainly consider them as the price difference between dual and quad isn't that much - indeed my media centre box also has a quad in it for that very reason (certainly don't need it for the media centre).

[Feek]

It's a good question and it's something I'm pondering and really only thought of this morning.

I'm using the PC with OS X maybe 95% of the time right now and Eve is struggling under OS X. A quick investigation this morning shows that I've got effectively the power of a Mac Book Pro but with better graphics and increasing the CPU power should speed things up quite effectively without spending silly pounds on an actual Mac Pro (even looking second hand, it's a big saving).

It may or may not happen, I'm first looking into it to see if it's practical/possible at minimal expense.

[Mark]

I agree with Lozza.

It's worth getting some performance numbers together to see what's causing the problems with the Eve software. If you are constantly maxing out the CPU while running it then you need to figure out why. Are other Mac users having the same problems you are?

For example, is the Mac's Eve app native Intel, or is it a PowerPC app running under Rosetta? (not sure how to tell - one of the Mac experts here may know). Rosetta apps will suffer on Intel, and that's an unavoidable fact.

At the end of the day, if the Eve software is poorly written, then no amount of hardware is going to fix that.

[Feek]

The Eve client isn't great but throwing more powerful hardware at it does help. The client runs with the help of TransGaming Technology (http://www.transgaming.com/news/?id=70) and it's Intel Macs only if that helps.

[semi-pro waster]

Sorry, just a quick scan through so you might have re-adjusted but the Q6600 doesn't have a 1333mhz FSB, it is still on 1066mhz with a 9x multiplier so you have 266.5mhz at stock to reach 2.4ghz. Therefore changing might not help fix the bug if it is specific to 1066mhz FSBs - the new Yorkfields (quad core) are 1333mhz FSB but I don't know offhand if your old DS3 supports them.

Your Noctua heatsink would be more than up to the job however. :)

[Feek]

Ahh, I misread the whatzit on OcUK (http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-210-IN&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=793). I only looked at the list of processers and didn't dig deeper.

I guess I'd be looking at one of these (http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/ProductInfo.asp?WebProductID=643237).

[semi-pro waster]

Ah ok, I see the reason for the confusion, that's a bit dodgy of them. While you are running at 1333mhz FSB it doesn't alter the fact that the CPU is a 1066mhz part. There is £0.24 difference between the CPU on OcUK and the one on Scan for the same part not misleadingly labelled as overclocked so it probably doesn't matter where you buy from really.

And the spelling mistakes on the OcUK website are atrocious, I hadn't noticed that much before.

[Mark]

FWIW, I got my Q6600 up to those settings first go, prime stable, without any voltage increase, and without any guarantee. The only reason I backed off to 2.88 is because I don't trust the RAM in my system to run overclocked.

The cooler I have is good, but not as good as a good tower cooler like the Noctua.

[Joe 90]

I guess I'd be looking at one of these (http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/ProductInfo.asp?WebProductID=643237).

oh noes - that 'package' scan link together there seems an affordable quad core upgrade at just short of £300!!

i've been wanting to upgrade for a while, now thats going to be hard to resist!