Lateral upgrading?

[maleficarus]

I have been debating this on another forum and I thought it would make a good topic here. Ok, this debate has to do with upgrading specifically what is called "lateral" upgrading. I recently upgraded the following:

P4 3.0C Northwood 512/800 HT
Asus P4C800-E motherboard 875 chipset
Kingston 1GB DDR400
Asus FX5700 256MB AGP

Upgraded the above to this:

P4 3.4 650 Prescott 2MB/800 EMT64 HT
Asus P5GD2-X motherboard 915 express chipset
Kingston 1GB DDR2-533
Asus 7600GS 256MB PCI-E SILENT

Now I was bashed by saying this was a "lateral upgrade" and pretty much was a bad upgrade because I have no dual core support with piss slow DDR2 and a poor performing 7600 model video card.

Now my big beef with the above is depending on what "end" you are upgrading from all upgrades are lateral in some way. I tried to explain that I really don't see the importance of dual core CPU's for what I do and that HT is good enough. I explained how I don't multitask, don't run a server of any kind and other then play video games and surf the net I'm pretty much a simple PC user.

So the question I have is this: If this is considered a poor lateral upgrade over what I had, can someone here explain to me upgrading to a duo core CPU would have been that much difference? I'm not asking for some flashy BM charts either. I'm talking real world as [H] likes to put it.

Thanks!



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mod Edit - Calling someone who replies to a question you ask a "dummy" gets your thread locked. Doing it again gets you even more attention. Up to you. BlindedByScience

 

[RogueTrip]

uhhh, its not exactly the dual-core about the core2 that makes it soo good, its that it is a better technology, your gonna be running a lower ghz but clock per clock the core2 is much faster than a prescott!

A e6600 will be great for everything where as the prescott at 4ghz still couldn't keep up, even if the e6600 has 1 core!!

 

[Xilikon]

I consider this a bad lateral upgrade with no future upgrade path.

Your first mistake was getting a 915 express chipset when you should have bought a motherboard with a 965 chipset, who can accept a Core 2 Duo processor. Second mistake is to spend money on the crappy prescott when you could have gotten a Core 2 Duo E4300 or E6300 for just a few bucks more and is much better in terms of power usage and processor power. Even if you want only HT, you should have bought a 65nm processor, not a Prescott.

 

[aldamon]

I explained how I don't multitask, don't run a server of any kind and other then play video games and surf the net I'm pretty much a simple PC user.

The "debate" was over the second you posted what you bought. Your opponent is right. You just wasted your money on a useless upgrade. You could have put a faster AGP card in your old system and been fine.

 

[maleficarus]

I consider this a bad lateral upgrade with no future upgrade path.

Your first mistake was getting a 915 express chipset when you should have bought a motherboard with a 965 chipset, who can accept a Core 2 Duo processor. Second mistake is to spend money on the crappy prescott when you could have gotten a Core 2 Duo E4300 or E6300 for just a few bucks more and is much better in terms of power usage and processor power. Even if you want only HT, you should have bought a 65nm processor, not a Prescott.

The problem I have with your reasoning is ALL chipsets have little to no upgrade path. I mean unless you upgrade your CPU a few times per year you’re just not going to need any future support. A good example was when I upgraded to my 875 chipset I was told that was not a good choice as PCI-E are just around the corner and that my upgrade path is dead-end and also Intel is changing the socket to 775. That all came true but the thing is 775 will be changed and I can guarantee PCI-E is going to be different in the not so long future so everyone with PCI-E 16x is dead end imo. I guess my point is there is no good time to upgrade in the PC world as it changes so rapidly. Not trying to flame or anything just wanting a logical real world debate here on what is really being used today.

 

[Spazilton]

The problem I have with your reasoning is ALL INTEL chipsets have little to no upgrade path. I mean unless you upgrade your CPU a few times per year you’re just not going to need any future support. A good example was when I upgraded to my 875 chipset I was told that was not a good choice as PCI-E are just around the corner and that my upgrade path is dead-end and also Intel is changing the socket to 775. That all came true but the thing is 775 will be changed and I can guarantee PCI-E is going to be different in the not so long future so everyone with PCI-E 16x is dead end imo. I guess my point is there is no good time to upgrade in the PC world as it changes so rapidly. Not trying to flame or anything just wanting a logical real world debate here on what is really being used today.

Corrected..

 

[maleficarus]

Corrected..

So you are implying AMD dosen't change sockets?

 

[maleficarus]

uhhh, its not exactly the dual-core about the core2 that makes it soo good, its that it is a better technology, your gonna be running a lower ghz but clock per clock the core2 is much faster than a prescott!

A e6600 will be great for everything where as the prescott at 4ghz still couldn't keep up, even if the e6600 has 1 core!!

Ok fair enough--in terms of real world what are we talking here? Are we talking about 30 FPS vs. 220 FPS? or are we talking about taking 8 seconds to decode something vs. 6.2 seconds? What I'm getting at is there any real noticble difference that you can actually see and feel using a prescott HT over a slower clocked duo?

My thinking was a big resounding no, but I'm leaving my mind open here and hoping someone here can actualy tell me with examples of some real world differences....

 

[aldamon]

The problem I have with your reasoning is ALL chipsets have little to no upgrade path. I mean unless you upgrade your CPU a few times per year you’re just not going to need any future support. A good example was when I upgraded to my 875 chipset I was told that was not a good choice as PCI-E are just around the corner and that my upgrade path is dead-end and also Intel is changing the socket to 775. That all came true but the thing is 775 will be changed and I can guarantee PCI-E is going to be different in the not so long future so everyone with PCI-E 16x is dead end imo. I guess my point is there is no good time to upgrade in the PC world as it changes so rapidly. Not trying to flame or anything just wanting a logical real world debate here on what is really being used today.

You simply do not understand how amazing the C2D is and how slow your "new" computer is in comparison. If you had bought a C2D-compatible motherboard, you would have had an upgrade path of an E4300 all the way to a quad-core QX6700 and any other C2D models released in the near future. Instead you're stuck with a P4 that's outclassed by budget AMD X2s.

 

[aldamon]

My thinking was a big resounding no, but I'm leaving my mind open here and hoping someone here can actualy tell me with examples of some real world differences....

You're wrong. Go read some benchmarks for a change.

 

[Chilly]

notice how long the S939 stayed around, it came out in 2001 I belive, thats a damn long time for a socket. AMD has been historicly known of keeping sockets aroudn, oh and btw to yur PCI-E comment, your dead wrong, PCI-EXPRESS is gonna stay around, the only diffrences being the standard, ie. PCI-E v1(right now) PCI-E v2(soon)m PCI-E v3, v4 etc till they come up with a new standard.... kinda remind anyone of AGP? thats all its gonna be like, faster speeds, but will be 100% compatable. Long story short, you could of gotten a motherboard and cpu that would of allowed you to upgrade for a long time to th latest and greatest stuff.

Also you could of gotten an agp x1950gt or 7800gs for a fraction of the price and put it in your old systenm and get WAYYYY better performance than you are getting now.

 

[maleficarus]

You're wrong. Go read some benchmarks for a change.

Arguably BM's are not real world even [H] admits this by alienating certain BM's in favor of others i.e.: futuremark over an in game demo that one might not even play. So to make a fair and even playing area show me some "real' situations with examples of how much more better a dual core CPU is. Can you without resorting to some BM chart?

 

[aldamon]

maleficarus, when everyone is telling you're wrong, it's time to consider the possibility you're wrong.

 

[RogueTrip]

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=432&model2=455&chart=168

Have fun with the diff configs, but you can easily see some games benches can reach over 30fps diff from a 650 to a e6600, plus the o/c'ing potential of the core 2's

Ther i think the link will show a diff of 37fps diff in Serious sam 2 from your 650. (trying to stay single core test)

I'd say the performance diff is probably 35+% from prescott to core 2

 

[Spazilton]

So you are implying AMD dosen't change sockets?

No Im Implying that AMD doesn't require a new chipset for every revision of processor they release.

 

[maleficarus]

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=432&model2=455&chart=168

Have fun with the diff configs, but you can easily see some games benches can reach over 30fps diff from a 650 to a e6600, plus the o/c'ing potential of the core 2's

Ther i think the link will show a diff of 37fps diff in Serious sam 2 from your 650. (trying to stay single core test)

I'd say the performance diff is probably 35+% from prescott to core 2

Thanks. So for 35% performance gain you would have to pay about 100% to 200% more in price...

Looks like I did make a good upgrade afterall...

 

[Spazilton]

notice how long the S939 stayed around, it came out in 2001 I belive, thats a damn long time for a socket. AMD has been historicly known of keeping sockets aroudn, oh and btw to yur PCI-E comment, your dead wrong, PCI-EXPRESS is gonna stay around, the only diffrences being the standard, ie. PCI-E v1(right now) PCI-E v2(soon)m PCI-E v3, v4 etc till they come up with a new standard.... kinda remind anyone of AGP? thats all its gonna be like, faster speeds, but will be 100% compatable. Long story short, you could of gotten a motherboard and cpu that would of allowed you to upgrade for a long time to th latest and greatest stuff.

Also you could of gotten an agp x1950gt or 7800gs for a fraction of the price and put it in your old systenm and get WAYYYY better performance than you are getting now.

It wasnt in 2001. It was 2004.

 

[RogueTrip]

Other than the 7600GT the upgrade was a lateral move, your 3.0c was comparable to a 3.2e or equivalent socketT.

The 5700 blows chunks, i had a 5700Ultra 128mb and upgraded my p4 3.0e @ 3.3 with a PCI-e mobo with a 7800GT, the gaming difference was NIGHT AND DAY!!!

I saw about 400+ 3dmark06 diff by getting my x2 4200+ And my x2 4200+ will still beat your 650, the cpu/mobo i got for 240$ in the FS/T forum was a decent price. And at 2.6ghz i need to get a new videocard to stop bottlenecking my cpu

In the end, if you only game, then get a better video card, CPU isn't a very imporant factor in gaming anymore

 

[Dan_D]

I have been debating this on another forum and I thought it would make a good topic here. Ok, this debate has to do with upgrading specifically what is called "lateral" upgrading. I recently upgraded the following:

P4 3.0C Northwood 512/800 HT
Asus P4C800-E motherboard 875 chipset
Kingston 1GB DDR400
Asus FX5700 256MB AGP

Upgraded the above to this:

P4 3.4 650 Prescott 2MB/800 EMT64 HT
Asus P5GD2-X motherboard 915 express chipset
Kingston 1GB DDR2-533
Asus 7600GS 256MB PCI-E SILENT

Now I was bashed by saying this was a "lateral upgrade" and pretty much was a bad upgrade because I have no dual core support with piss slow DDR2 and a poor performing 7600 model video card.

Now my big beef with the above is depending on what "end" you are upgrading from all upgrades are lateral in some way. I tried to explain that I really don't see the importance of dual core CPU's for what I do and that HT is good enough. I explained how I don't multitask, don't run a server of any kind and other then play video games and surf the net I'm pretty much a simple PC user.

So the question I have is this: If this is considered a poor lateral upgrade over what I had, can someone here explain to me upgrading to a duo core CPU would have been that much difference? I'm not asking for some flashy BM charts either. I'm talking real world as [H] likes to put it.

Thanks!

Prescott core CPUs suck. Basically, they are slower per clock, use more power and generate more heat than the Northwood CPUs do. At stock speeds, the new 3.4GHz CPU doesn't buy you much other than 64bit compatibility. The i915 chipset doesn't give you Core 2 Duo compatibility and the ram you've chosen is no faster than DDR1 in reality. The reason people are bashing your upgrade is because it was a bad upgrade. Your video card is quite a bit better I think but the rest of it isn't. So in order to use a medium to lower end video card you chose to spend money on a new CPU, memory, and motherboard. No matter how you want to justify it you made a bad upgrade.

Several of your points aren't valid either. Even if the motherboard chipsets aren't compatible with newer processors, the newer chipsets are compatible with older processors provided the new board uses the old socket. This gives you more CPU choices and allows you to upgrade your machine more easily in stages rather than all at once. Also the newer motherboards are quad core compatible. The 680i chipset is also supposedly compatible with the newer 1333MHz FSB parts Intel will release later this year. So again, you can in fact build a system with something of an upgrade path today.

You seem to like HT, but the fact is that HT is a poor man's SMP setup. The dual core CPU's would have offered you more performance in general. Again, you may not need dual core today, but since dual core CPUs are so cheap, why not? If you are the type of person who likes to upgrade very little, it makes sense to buy higher end parts that will provide better performance for a longer period of time.

In short, your "new" rig is not much faster than your old one, and gives you nearly no options for upgrading at all. If bang for your buck was a concern to you, I am sorry to inform you that you have failed to get the best bang for your buck. Your video card is better than your old one, but you could have gotten better performance out of the aforementioned X1950Pro AGP than the with the card you have now in your new rig.

 

[aldamon]

Thanks. So for 35% performance gain you would have to pay about 100% to 200% more in price...

Looks like I did make a good upgrade afterall...

Yeah, you upgraded to a CPU that gives you slower performance than an Athlon 64 3200+ that came out 3 years ago. Congrats!

 

[BillParrish]

I am not giving my opinion, it was your call, your money, stand tall and live with it good or bad and to flaming hello with everyone else. But to come and try to get other peoples sign off after the fact is like, well I just dont know. What did your mommy have say about it ?

< walks away humming "Garden Party" by Ricky Nelson >

 

[Dan_D]

Yeah, you upgraded to a CPU that gives you slower performance than an Athlon 64 3200+ that came out 3 years ago. Congrats!

Yep. There were plenty of cheaper and more sensible choices that would have provided more performance for similar money. On the video card side, this is one rare instance where I might have recommended an AGP video card to extend the life of the original machine. Or I would have recommended an AMD X2 3800+ (AM2) or something like that rather than going with Core 2 Duo given the budget that the OP probably had to work with. buying a Pentium 4 or even most Pentium D's just seems pointless to me. You can do better than that at nearly any price point.

The OPs' new video card is superior to the one that he/she had, and I've got no problem with a 7600 series card at all. It's the motherboard and CPU choice I question. There was no point in buying a dead end motherboard/CPU/memory combo (that provides almost no performance increase) when he/she already had one. If you were going to do that, he/she should have just purchased a better video card in AGP instead and he/she would have a better gaming system than he or she does now.

 

[Xilikon]

It looks like you are trying very hard not to bang your head on the wall for the worst upgrade decision and hoping to hear someone telling it's good...

Dan_D expressed perfectly what I'm trying to say.

 

[ShinaKitsune]

upgrading to a e4300, 650i, and 667 ram would have cost you around $350 then adding a new video card to that would bring it up another hundred or so. Your current upgrade was roughly $250... so for another hundred you could have got a better motherboard, cpu, and ram in line with a better upgrade path with the motherboard, also with the 650i setup i mentioned earlier you are almost "guaranteed" an overclock to 3ghz if you so wish to overclock.
Then later you could always upgrade to a new 1333fsb intel cpu, and etc.

Lateral upgrades only really make sence if you are upgrading parts in line with an upgrade path. Like getting a ok motherboard and then dropping a 775celeron or something on it until you can afford the newer processor you want... or something similar. Not going from a dead/dying setup to another dead/dying setup.

Though, you seem to be content with what you did, and none of us can change your thought of mind.
My most recent upgrade was from a A64 3500+ and a RD480 chipset motherboard and ddr400 ram to my current setup which is in my signature

 

[mwarps]

I have been debating this on another forum and I thought it would make a good topic here. Ok, this debate has to do with upgrading specifically what is called "lateral" upgrading. I recently upgraded the following:

P4 3.0C Northwood 512/800 HT
Asus P4C800-E motherboard 875 chipset
Kingston 1GB DDR400
Asus FX5700 256MB AGP

Upgraded the above to this:

P4 3.4 650 Prescott 2MB/800 EMT64 HT
Asus P5GD2-X motherboard 915 express chipset
Kingston 1GB DDR2-533
Asus 7600GS 256MB PCI-E SILENT

This is not an upgrade, or a sidegrade. It's a downgrade.
Prescotts perform slower than Northwoods clock per clock.
DDR2-533 is slower than DDR400 at halfway decent timings.
Your videocard "upgrade" was decent, but you completely ignored the fact that you could have upgraded just your video on AGP and gotten a much bigger gain in gaming.

If you completed this upgrade during any period of time when the core2duo was available, you made a monumental mistake.

If you don't want to benchmark, or don't believe them, then ask someone. People here have given their voice on the fact that the core2 completely annihilates the netburst P4 time and time again. If you don't believe Benchmarks or people, kindly close up shop and leave the forums as your misinformed drivel and baiting tactics are not welcome.

 

[Spazilton]

upgrading to a e4300, 650i, and 667 ram would have cost you around $350 then adding a new video card to that would bring it up another hundred or so. Your current upgrade was roughly $250... so for another hundred you could have got a better motherboard, cpu, and ram in line with a better upgrade path with the motherboard, also with the 650i setup i mentioned earlier you are almost "guaranteed" an overclock to 3ghz if you so wish to overclock.
Then later you could always upgrade to a new 1333fsb intel cpu, and etc.

Lateral upgrades only really make sence if you are upgrading parts in line with an upgrade path. Like getting a ok motherboard and then dropping a 775celeron or something on it until you can afford the newer processor you want... or something similar. Not going from a dead/dying setup to another dead/dying setup.

Though, you seem to be content with what you did, and none of us can change your thought of mind.
My most recent upgrade was from a A64 3500+ and a RD480 chipset motherboard and ddr400 ram to my current setup which is in my signature

What I find funny, Is that his old system has WAY more resale value than his *New* system

That P4C800-E is probally the second best motherboard ever made for S478. Hell Newegg had the BFG 7800GS on sale last week for $150 after MIR. You would have been doing much better off just getting an AGP card than doing a downgrade like you have.

 

[carp3n0ct3m]

Can we just call this guy a moron already and be done with it? This guy doesn't seem to get the hint, he made a bad upgrade choice. He continues to try and justify his purchase by picking and choosing a few posts out of many that would make his purchase seem like a good one. Looks like he should've done his homework before trying to upgrade.

 

[Spazilton]

Can we just call this guy a moron already and be done with it? This guy doesn't seem to get the hint, he made a bad upgrade choice. He continues to try and justify his purchase by picking and choosing a few posts out of many that would make his purchase seem like a good one. Looks like he should've done his homework before trying to upgrade.

He seems to be a glutton for punishment. If he wants to keep coming back to justify his purchase, and keep getting proven completly totally wrong, than more power to him.

BTW to the OP.

Throw me some benchmark numbers on your *New* rig. I guarntee I can beat them hands down on the AGP platform.. (IC7-MAX3 P4 3.0C (will match clock speeds) 1GB at 2-2-2-5, and a 7800GS)

 

[maleficarus]

Prescott core CPUs suck. Basically, they are slower per clock, use more power and generate more heat than the Northwood CPUs do. At stock speeds, the new 3.4GHz CPU doesn't buy you much other than 64bit compatibility. The i915 chipset doesn't give you Core 2 Duo compatibility and the ram you've chosen is no faster than DDR1 in reality. The reason people are bashing your upgrade is because it was a bad upgrade. Your video card is quite a bit better I think but the rest of it isn't. So in order to use a medium to lower end video card you chose to spend money on a new CPU, memory, and motherboard. No matter how you want to justify it you made a bad upgrade.

Several of your points aren't valid either. Even if the motherboard chipsets aren't compatible with newer processors, the newer chipsets are compatible with older processors provided the new board uses the old socket. This gives you more CPU choices and allows you to upgrade your machine more easily in stages rather than all at once. Also the newer motherboards are quad core compatible. The 680i chipset is also supposedly compatible with the newer 1333MHz FSB parts Intel will release later this year. So again, you can in fact build a system with something of an upgrade path today.

You seem to like HT, but the fact is that HT is a poor man's SMP setup. The dual core CPU's would have offered you more performance in general. Again, you may not need dual core today, but since dual core CPUs are so cheap, why not? If you are the type of person who likes to upgrade very little, it makes sense to buy higher end parts that will provide better performance for a longer period of time.

In short, your "new" rig is not much faster than your old one, and gives you nearly no options for upgrading at all. If bang for your buck was a concern to you, I am sorry to inform you that you have failed to get the best bang for your buck. Your video card is better than your old one, but you could have gotten better performance out of the aforementioned X1950Pro AGP than the with the card you have now in your new rig.

Hey Dan thanks for the response. At least you can answer without sounding like your 15 years old. But not to argue with you but rather I want to point out some things I still have a hard time with: The one biggest thing everyone forgets to mention in this thread is Intel chipsets are expensive. To get one of the newer ones on a motherboard that carries a half decent name is going to set you back the better part of $250 bucks. I really don't believe in buying el-cheapo motherboards just so I can afford a fast top of the line CPU. Also some are actually recommending another AGP video card. I don't know about you but that is the most obvious DEAD-END sign upgrade going. Also price was a huge factor for this upgrade. I paid $115 USD for a retail 3.4. And about $50 for the 915 motherboard. Can you honestly say that you could match that in price/performance? You can't even get a C2D CPU for that much let alone a mobo.

I guess I'm still not convinced that for general PC tasks and the odd game online dual core has so much more over HT. You call it a poor mans SMP but reality says it is the most utilized SMP. One guy here posted showing me a 35% gain in game performance without taking into consideration that 35% gain is roughly 100% to 200% more expensive. When do you draw the line here? I mean sure if I had a million dollars I could get any CPU, any motherboard combo I wanted but....

I guess what I was looking for some real world proof showing that a 3.4 Prescott is a bad idea. If all you can show me is around 25%to 35% and some extra heat issues I'm not convinced. Anyways thanks for the input Dan was a pleasure!

 

[maleficarus]

"That P4C800-E is probally the second best motherboard ever made for S478"

I guess that explains why I sold it for the cost of my CPU, RAM and motherboard combined last week on ebay
Sold it for $220 USD!

 

[maleficarus]

This is not an upgrade, or a sidegrade. It's a downgrade.
Prescotts perform slower than Northwoods clock per clock.
DDR2-533 is slower than DDR400 at halfway decent timings.
Your videocard "upgrade" was decent, but you completely ignored the fact that you could have upgraded just your video on AGP and gotten a much bigger gain in gaming.

If you completed this upgrade during any period of time when the core2duo was available, you made a monumental mistake.

If you don't want to benchmark, or don't believe them, then ask someone. People here have given their voice on the fact that the core2 completely annihilates the netburst P4 time and time again. If you don't believe Benchmarks or people, kindly close up shop and leave the forums as your misinformed drivel and baiting tactics are not welcome.

Hey thanks for the overwhelmingly nice reply. But we are NOT comparing clock for clock we are comparing a 3GHz 512 chip to a 3.4Ghz 2MB chip and you still call that a downgrade lol...Geesh!

I don't care if clock for clock there slower that is why I bought one 400MHz faster dummy!

 

[Dan_D]

Hey Dan thanks for the response. At least you can answer without sounding like your 15 years old. But not to argue with you but rather I want to point out some things I still have a hard time with: The one biggest thing everyone forgets to mention in this thread is Intel chipsets are expensive. To get one of the newer ones on a motherboard that carries a half decent name is going to set you back the better part of $250 bucks. I really don't believe in buying el-cheapo motherboards just so I can afford a fast top of the line CPU. Also some are actually recommending another AGP video card. I don't know about you but that is the most obvious DEAD-END sign upgrade going. Also price was a huge factor for this upgrade. I paid $115 USD for a retail 3.4. And about $50 for the 915 motherboard. Can you honestly say that you could match that in price/performance? You can't even get a C2D CPU for that much let alone a mobo.

I guess I'm still not convinced that for general PC tasks and the odd game online dual core has so much more over HT. You call it a poor mans SMP but reality says it is the most utilized SMP. One guy here posted showing me a 35&#37; gain in game performance without taking into consideration that 35% gain is roughly 100% to 200% more expensive. When do you draw the line here? I mean sure if I had a million dollars I could get any CPU, any motherboard combo I wanted but....

I guess what I was looking for some real world proof showing that a 3.4 Prescott is a bad idea. If all you can show me is around 25%to 35% and some extra heat issues I'm not convinced. Anyways thanks for the input Dan was a pleasure!

HT has nothing on dual core. I've owned a shit load of Pentium 4 CPUs and I've got a Pentium 965EE which is a dual core CPU with HT. Trust me, if you multi-task, dual core is the only way to go. I've had my hands on every type of modern processor (P4, Pentium D, Core 2 Duo, X2, traditional SMP systems etc.) and HT (while nice at the time it was introduced) is nothing special today. As someone already pointed out, the Core 2 Duo isn't just about being dual core. It's faster per clock cylce, uses less power and generates less heat. Not to mention they are overclocking beasts. I think all Core 2 Duo's outperform your processor. Even the $160 E4300. Core 2 Duo prices will continue to fall as price cuts are coming in Q2 of this year. If you had waited, you could have gotten more for your money than you did with this upgrade.

You spend $165 for what? A system that offers minimal performance over what you had. If you see large gains at all, it's because of the 7600 being superior to the ancient FX 5700 which wasn't all that great to begin with. Sure the 400MHz clock speed increase is ok, but you would be getting FAR better performance out of an AGP X1950Pro than you are out of your current setup. My point was that before you had a dead end CPU and motherboard upgrade path, and you still do. So why bother trading one dead end setup for one that's 15% faster on a good day? You are talking about price/performance ratio but that's not what you bought into. Between the video card, CPU and ram you spent probably more money than you would have for an X1950Pro AGP and got less gaming performance for your money.

Another area I disagree with you on is about the cost of a good motherboard with an Intel chipset. They can be had for much closer to $150 without having to buy something low quality. If you are happy with your purchase that's all that really matters.

 

[mwarps]

Hey thanks for the overwhelmingly nice reply. But we are NOT comparing clock for clock we are comparing a 3GHz 512 chip to a 3.4Ghz 2MB chip and you still call that a downgrade lol...Geesh!

I don't care if clock for clock there slower that is why I bought one 400MHz faster dummy!

You can put your head in the sand as much as you'd like and throw around childish insults. You asked peoples' opinions and you made a poor choice and people are telling you as much. /ignore.

 

[sabregen]

Dan_D...ah man, where to begin? I'm just sitting back, reading this, and enjoying the show. You've accomplished communicating eloquently what everyone tried to tell him with religious and rabid fervour. I likely have no useful information to add to this thread, at this point. I just want to chime in and say officially:

There's a reason I have read [H] every day since July of 1998...and this thread exemplifies the community that I am proud to call one of my cozy homes!

Someone get the OP a towel....he needs to throw into the middle of a ring.

/me out!

PS - As an aside, I would rarely consider shelling out money for an AGP card at this point, to extend the life of an AGP system. There are a few exceptions, of course (always will be, and this case is one of them). In the case of the OP, there are very few cards that one would be able to get his/her hands on for an AGP slot that wouldn't be faster than a 5700. Any of the 6600,7600 series cards from Nvidia, or the x800(PRO/XL/XT/XT PE) and x1600-x1900 cards would have been faster. Without a doubt, the choice (on upgrade path) was poor, but let us not forget the shit hot parts of 2 years ago would have smoked his 5700 on his old setup. I personally know of quite a few people looking to dump their long-in-the-tooth AGP S478/775/754/939 setups to make the move to newer sockets, RAM, and video solutions....and they're dumping their old parts on the FS thread, and on e-bay...for cheap. He could have had a 6600GT, 6800XT, 7600GS (AGP), or X800XL or XT for around $80, used.

...okay, I'm really done, now.

 

[Spazilton]

"That P4C800-E is probally the second best motherboard ever made for S478"

I guess that explains why I sold it for the cost of my CPU, RAM and motherboard combined last week on ebay

Ya and sadly took a step in the wrong direction. With a better video card, that system would have run circles around the one you have now

 

[Spazilton]

You can put your head in the sand as much as you'd like and throw around childish insults. You asked peoples' opinions and you made a poor choice and people are telling you as much. /ignore.

I am also willing to bet, If you had just raised your FSB to 227, you would have put off the need for an upgrade all together.

 

[kent]

What are you guys saying?

This was a GREAT upgrade!

 

[wee96]

< walks away humming "Garden Party" by Ricky Nelson >

Thanks, Mountain Dew is now all over my monitor

 

[maleficarus]

HT has nothing on dual core. I've owned a shit load of Pentium 4 CPUs and I've got a Pentium 965EE which is a dual core CPU with HT. Trust me, if you multi-task, dual core is the only way to go. I've had my hands on every type of modern processor (P4, Pentium D, Core 2 Duo, X2, traditional SMP systems etc.) and HT (while nice at the time it was introduced) is nothing special today. As someone already pointed out, the Core 2 Duo isn't just about being dual core. It's faster per clock cylce, uses less power and generates less heat. Not to mention they are overclocking beasts. I think all Core 2 Duo's outperform your processor. Even the $160 E4300. Core 2 Duo prices will continue to fall as price cuts are coming in Q2 of this year. If you had waited, you could have gotten more for your money than you did with this upgrade.

You spend $165 for what? A system that offers minimal performance over what you had. If you see large gains at all, it's because of the 7600 being superior to the ancient FX 5700 which wasn't all that great to begin with. Sure the 400MHz clock speed increase is ok, but you would be getting FAR better performance out of an AGP X1950Pro than you are out of your current setup. My point was that before you had a dead end CPU and motherboard upgrade path, and you still do. So why bother trading one dead end setup for one that's 15&#37; faster on a good day? You are talking about price/performance ratio but that's not what you bought into. Between the video card, CPU and ram you spent probably more money than you would have for an X1950Pro AGP and got less gaming performance for your money.

Another area I disagree with you on is about the cost of a good motherboard with an Intel chipset. They can be had for much closer to $150 without having to buy something low quality. If you are happy with your purchase that's all that really matters.

I honestly thought about sticking with AGP for another few years but decided at last minute to make the mirgration to PCI-E as I figured there would be no other options anymore. Maby my choice wasen't the best possible but I can't honestly admit it was a bad upgrade--lateral fine I can live with that. A bad upgrade would be 3Ghz Northwood for say a 3.2Ghz 775.

Oh for the record (not that this matters) the FX5700 wasen't that bad of a video card at least not when you OCed it. I had mine running out of box 500core/600memory from a default of 425core/500 memory. It played every game I tossed at it back in 2002 without any problems athough I was limited to 1024x768 resolution but then again that is the only reasolution I use as I can't read high resolution fonts worth a crap heh..

Thanks for your time!

 

[sabregen]

It played every game I tossed at it back in 2002 without any problems athough I was limited to 1024x768 resolution

It's that kind of logic, however, that you are being attacked for. There's nothing wrong with using hardware until the last ounce of usefulness is gone from it...but being able to play every game from 5 years ago, at a resolution relegated to 8-15" CRTs is nothing to brag about, or get all misty-eyed over. PCI-E is not a bad move, but I am in agreement with the others, in your case, it was not cost effective to upgrade the CPU and RAM to get "better performance" out of your system. a newer video card and a slight OC would have well extended the usefulness of the system. Be that as it is, you pulled the trigger already...and we're still arguing over it. If you were truly happy with your purchase, you would not have started this thread in the first place, and in that you did...you seem to question your spenind og funds (despite your vehement defense of doing so, to all of us). Make up your mind, and be happy with whatever you decided.

/me out