by JLC » Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:29:28
Well I can say going from a E6600 2.4GHz that I ran for about 11 months to
the E6850, which I installed last month, I can tell I have a faster set of
CPU's. And that's when *** but in running apps. The E6600 was blazing
fast compared to the P4 2GHz it replaced, and the difference between the
E6600 and the E6850 sure wasn't nearly as noticeable, but apps like Firefox
and anything to do with video encoding is faster. But if I had upgraded for
anything but *** , I'd have gone quad.
If you look at the charts the quads stomp all over the dual cores when it
comes to hard core apps. But games still don't really make use of the quad
cores yet, so I figure by the time that they do, the new Intel chips will be
out for awhile and the price for a high end quad core will be with in my
budget.
I had upgraded first to the XFX 8800GT XXX which has it's core clocked at
670, so this is what is doing most of the heavy lifting when it comes to
*** . Then once I had the new video card I just had to get the E6850 to go
with it. I know I probably could have got the E6600 up to 3GHz, but I'm just
not into overclocking anymore. I must say that when it comes to *** , I
could have stuck with the E6600 and been just fine. It's made very little
improvment, but that's OK with me. I just wanted to have a 3GHz Core 2 Duo!
What really chapped my *** was I have the same RAM as you do (man did I
get stuck 11 months ago, $284 for the same stuff that's now $50!) and I'd
been running it for all this time at 667 because I never played around with
my Asus P5B Deluxe bios. It wasn't until I installed the 1,333FSB CPU that I
realized I could adjust the CPU and RAM's FSB's independently! Man it still
stings when I think about it! Oh well. JLC
