I know this is not the exact same CPU, but the Q6600 on this video is clocked @ 3.11GHz, so it should be pretty relevant. Here is a video showing Q6600@3.11GHz and FX-8350@4.52GHz rendering side by side
And that's an old version of Cinebench that isn't even properly optimised for the AMD. From all of the data I have seen a Vishera PD @ 4.5ghz+ (which seems to be the sweet spot) has around the same single threaded performance as an I7 920 at 4ghz. And there are eight full cores. Lately I've been testing out games and monitoring their core use. I saw Crysis 2 make use of 12 threads. And that's an old game. I really can't wait to get my Origin account on my Xeon and see what BF3, BF4, Crysis 3 and etc do.
Grid 2 runs surprisingly well on an old Q9550 at ~3.7GHz. In fact, a few exceptions aside, most current games do providing you have a good enough GPU. Sure, things are now changing but I wouldn't £spend on that AMD upgrade just yet. For me it doesn't have the grunt in those games that don't rely so much on 5+ threads - which is the vast majority of games at the moment - to justify the outlay. If I was in the OP's position and someone held a gun to my head and forced me to upgrade now, I'd go for a used 2500k and overclock it, otherwise I'd just sit on my Q9550 & GTX 570 for a while longer, save for a new system (including a new GPU) and see what comes along in the next 6 months or so.
You're wrong, though. An AMD has more than enough grunt for anything. What you don't realise is that the 6300 when clocked up is every bit as good as a 2500k. And you can get a brand new 6300 for less than you can get a used 2500k. Look, I'm not anti Intel dude. I never have been and never will be. I'm just pro bargain, and right now when it comes to gaming AMD have it covered. IE - their processors are the best value for money in gaming right now. If that changes? then I'll go with it, but that's just how things are at the moment. AMD motherboards are also considerably less than the Intels too, so you usually find yourself with a board, CPU and ram for the same price you would pay for say an I3 with just the board. It's funny just how many people don't realise how good the AMD Visheras are at gaming. As for games that use less than 5 cores? dude, every game in the last year has supported 6. Sleeping Dogs, Hitman - Absolution, Crysis 3, Battlefield 4, Metro : Last Light.. It just goes on. And they were the heavy games (the ones you need loads of grunt for) and in all of those the AMDs win in their price bracket. At 4.7ghz my 8320 was outperforming a 3770 non K in Metro and my CPU cost £100 less. Now sure, I bought a very high end motherboard (the best on AM3+) and it cost me £160, but that is only because I wanted to bench at 5ghz and beyond. I've now settled for a 4.9ghz daily overclock that I may change in the summer, but I can get 4.7ghz all day long with a small voltage bump and no rise from the stock temps.
No, I'm not wrong - Grid 2 definitely ran beautifully on a overclocked Q9550. I saw it with my own mince-pies, honest guv! (I'd try BF3 too but I don't have it. *humble bundle key hint* )
Grid 2 runs better than Dirt 3, FFS. And, IMO it doesn't look as good. Even Dirt Showdown gave my GPU a workout. If you're going to be playing games like that (crap ones) then just keep what you have.
I find the opposite to be true. Dirt 3 leaves more headroom than Grid 2. Anyway, you just called a game "crap", presumably because you don't like it. Lol.
OP.....Forget upgrading the platform, get a fast high capacity SSD, You will notice far more of a performance hike. It'll keep your system relevant for another year or two. Then upgrade to a DDR4 intel system (or AMD if they can get their Fab problem sorted). That's where the smart money would go. I'd be very surprised if you run into CPU bottlenecking @4 3.7GHz cores unless you are running BF4. The SSD affects every part of your PC life. You will be amazed at the difference. The AMD vs Intel argument is sound and accurate, but will make very little difference to most things. We are talking 3/4 FPS here i.e Feck all. You can make that back by OCing you GFX card a bit (more) Spending your hard earned on an SSD that you can transfer to the new DDR4 system when the time comes is deffo the way to go.
I'm in a rush today so I apologise if what I say has been said because I've skipped through the thread. Ideal world you wait for DDR4/Skylake (that's what I'm doing but I wouldn't be surprised if I turned hypocrite next year). If you're still on a HDD then SSD would be the first thing to get in my eyes. If you're sitting on 2GB RAM then definitely upgrade to 8GB; second priority. If you're sitting on 4GB RAM then upgrade to 8GB but only if it's cheap or you use programs which soak up RAM. If you absolutely must upgrade then don't get anything higher than Sandybridge. Good board ~£60 and i5 2500k ~£110; I'm being safe with prices, they're probably 20% cheaper. You'll get performance to do what you want now and you will likely be satiated because you'll feel/appreciate the performance gain after coming from 2nd Gen Core2. If that still does not satisfy you then don't go beyond Ivybridge. This is what makes economical sense to me. Everyone do comment and point out flaws in my opinion as this is advice I would give to anyone in this situation and I wonder if it is bad advice.
Just because I always like to see how my rig stacks up against the new stuff. Just ran Cinebench R15 on mine. Q6600 @ 3GHz (375*8) Score : 255cb So, not brilliant, , only marginally ahead of a 1.7GHz i5-3317U. But, I have not real problems in games, with a GTX660, it runs pretty much everything I want to play at decent settings at 1080p. Does make me wonder about how much better the overall system would be with a more modern CPU/RAM combo, , just wish I could afford it,
here is my Cinebench results with a 405Mhz FSB, when I get some 1066 RAM, I'll re test with a higher FSB... I tried to run realbench 2.1 and it says I need 4gb free, and I couldn't be bothered to alter my virtual mem settings and I can't run firestrike by itself because its the free version, so when I get some time I will run the whole thing and upload the scores. I've got some Kingston RAM from Ebay on its way, so looks like I am sticking with the Q9550 for now, and see what comes out later. But I'm liking the idea of an SSD. Thanks!
Oh Lord. Andy arguing the AMD route once more. Haha. As always, your arguments are based around numbers and you're comparing an "up to date" AMD CPU to a six year old Intel CPU. Sure, it's got eight cores, with half the actual important stuff inside so it's effectively four cores to software that doesn't know how to utilise the stupid AMD structure. However, with that said, software developers did not develop their software to work on one FPU (I think, I've not read up on it in years) per two cores so maybe in time, they will, or maybe they won't. Intel still remain to be the dominant force in the IT industry, so it's likely that they won't change all that soon, if at all. I've got to be honest. Don't you get tired of arguing your point when everyone else sees differently? You must be one hell of a fanboy. The Q9550 may be old, but it is still capable in most scenarios. It is getting a little slow now, sure, but it isn't so far behind that it needs changing if the budget doesn't allow for it. It also isn't that much slower than a first gen i7, especially when it's clocked. You may be able to squeeze a few more MHz out of it. Mine ran at 4.15GHz on 1.4 volts but it may have been a good chip, I'm not too sure. If you really wanted an upgrade, a cheap second hand 2500K and motherboard would be far better than any AMD malarkey. I'm no fanboy, fact is fact. Glad to see that you've stuck with that rig though. I always wanted a Q9550 and only got one when Sandy Bridge was coming to and end as I wanted to overclock its nuts off.
TBH I would stick with what you've got. The Q9550 traded blows with the Phenom II 955/965 and still looked good. Nothing on the AMD side is much of an upgrade unless you need multiple threads and for the price doesn't seem particularly good value IMO. I would look towards Intel for the jump in performance worth upgrading for but again, its don to you if that's value or not. Like me your looking at a new mobo and ram with the processor, in which case with the future of AM3+ looking uncertain, new Intel stuff on the Horizon (cheaper second hand upgrades) and it doesn't look like AMD will catch up soon. Intel could be the better long term option.
I switched from a Q9650 @3.6GHz to the i5 4670K last July. Apart from the obvious mobo change and swapping the RAM for 16GB of the same speed, all other parts are the same as from the previous build. Night and day difference in game performance. Codemasters games weren't exactly choppy before but I can now consistently get 60fps which was unmanageable before, even with the same 660Ti GPU. More of an RTS person though, Supreme Commander 2 definitely benefitted far more than any other game I play in terms of smoother performance. Agree with the suggestion above to hold out until next year but with caution that DDR4 will more than likely be insanely expensive - I haven't forgotten that my old LGA775 mobo supported DDR3 out of the box but that 2x 1GB 1,333MHz sticks was £150 in Feb 2008 - bought a 2nd pair 2 months later for £100. Apart from the price, those sticks also require 1.8V to run properly and as a result don't work in any 115x mobo as they can't provide more than 1.65V. I had intended on reusing them - still the right decision as any modern DDR3 will still drop in perfectly into the same mobo but I wouldn't be surprised if DDR4 has similar issues, tbh I'd suggest holding out for Cannonlake (formerly Skymont, Skylakes 2016 successor) for a new build so that the DDR4 spec stabilises. If you need a quick boost, 2nd hand Sandybridge definitely would be my recommendation for the short term.
