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

Feek · 14-04-2008, 08:43

I'm using a GigaByte 965P-DS3 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 · 14-04-2008, 08:52

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 · 14-04-2008, 08:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zirax

sec

?

Feek · 14-04-2008, 09:51

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 · 14-04-2008, 09:56

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 · 14-04-2008, 10:02

Well I'm spending more and more time in OS X and the Apple hype 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 · 14-04-2008, 10:10

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 · 14-04-2008, 11:00

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 · 14-04-2008, 11:53

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 · 14-04-2008, 16:13

The Eve client isn't great but throwing more powerful hardware at it does help. The client runs with the help of TransGaming Technology and it's Intel Macs only if that helps.

14-04-2008, 08:43	#1
Feek ex SAS Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: JO01ou Posts: 10,062	Upgrading to a Quad Core CPU - How much performance increase? I'm using a GigaByte 965P-DS3 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? __________________

14-04-2008, 08:52	#2
Zirax Goes up to 11! Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,577	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 Last edited by Zirax; 14-04-2008 at 08:58.

14-04-2008, 09:51	#4
Feek ex SAS Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: JO01ou Posts: 10,062	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. __________________

14-04-2008, 09:56	#5
Matblack Baby Bore Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Svalbard Posts: 9,770	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 __________________ "we had roots that grew towards each other underground, and when all the pretty blossom had fallen from our branches we found that we were one tree and not two"

14-04-2008, 10:02	#6
Feek ex SAS Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: JO01ou Posts: 10,062	Well I'm spending more and more time in OS X and the Apple hype seems to indicate that Leopard really does take advantage of the extra cores, and that's what got me thinking about the possible change. __________________

14-04-2008, 10:10	#7
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	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).

14-04-2008, 11:00	#8
Feek ex SAS Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: JO01ou Posts: 10,062	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. __________________

14-04-2008, 11:53	#9
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	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.

14-04-2008, 16:13	#10
Feek ex SAS Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: JO01ou Posts: 10,062	The Eve client isn't great but throwing more powerful hardware at it does help. The client runs with the help of TransGaming Technology and it's Intel Macs only if that helps. __________________