Core2extreme vs Quad Core

"kony" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 May 2009 12:29:51 -0400, "Ian D"
wrote:


I was looking at upgrading from a C2 Duo to a faster Quad,
(Q9650), so I priced out the CPU, MB, and 4GB of DDR3.
Then I looked at the Core i7. For $100 more than the C2 Quad,
I got the higher performance i7. The i7 920 CPU was $50 less,
the MB was $50 more, and the 6GB of triple channel 1666MHz
DDR3 RAM was $100 more, mainly because of the extra 2GB
and higher speed. In the few months since I upgraded, the
only price change is in a drop in the RAM price.

At this time, going to the latest CPU generation can be less
costly than the previous generation, especially at the high end.
In Canada, the 3.2GHz Core i7 965 Extreme CPU is $500 less than
the 3.2GHZ Core 2 Quad QX9770.


Ok, but now contrast that with the multiple years old single
core, sub-2GB systems most people are using. For those
people, a $75 motherboard, $50 CPU, and 4GB of DDR2 for $25
after a rebate would make for a large performance boost at a
total cost of $150.

If someone upgraded like this every 2 years, opposed to
someone who upgraded to the high end modern parts every 4,
they may have on average, as much computing power but spent
less. Perhaps my primary point isn't to buy low end, it's
that if someone is on the fence about whether to pay a
premium or not, they are usually already lacking any
specific purpose that makes them know they need to spend a
lot more...

For $150 you also have a faster system than what was
possible a few years ago, with few if any "killer apps" that
need more performance than we had then, though watching HD
video seems to be more popular now so a system at least
capable of 1080p playback would be nice, but with today's
IGP accelerated HD decoding that can be had on a new $150
upgrade and the CPU itself might even be able to do it alone
in software.

I was more or less addressing the OP, who was trying to
decide between a performance Core 2 Quad, or Extreme.
In the case of the quad, it's probably budget neutral to go
for a Core i7, and for the Extreme, there's a financial advantage
with the Core i7 Extreme. It's a lot less expensive than the
Core 2 Extreme, for a lot more computing power.

On May 18, 7:19*am, "Ian D" wrote:
"kony" wrote in message

...





On Sun, 17 May 2009 12:29:51 -0400, "Ian D"
wrote:

I was looking at upgrading from a C2 Duo to a faster Quad,
(Q9650), so I priced out the CPU, MB, and 4GB of DDR3.
Then I looked at the Core i7. *For $100 more than the C2 Quad,
I got the higher performance i7. *The i7 920 CPU was $50 less,
the MB was $50 more, and the 6GB of triple channel 1666MHz
DDR3 RAM was $100 more, mainly because of the extra 2GB
and higher speed. *In the few months since I upgraded, the
only price change is in a drop in the RAM price.

At this time, going to the latest CPU generation can be less
costly than the previous generation, especially at the high end.
In Canada, the 3.2GHz Core i7 965 Extreme CPU is $500 less than
the 3.2GHZ Core 2 Quad QX9770.

Ok, but now contrast that with the multiple years old single
core, sub-2GB systems most people are using. *For those
people, a $75 motherboard, $50 CPU, and 4GB of DDR2 for $25
after a rebate would make for a large performance boost at a
total cost of $150.

If someone upgraded like this every 2 years, opposed to
someone who upgraded to the high end modern parts every 4,
they may have on average, as much computing power but spent
less. *Perhaps my primary point isn't to buy low end, it's
that if someone is on the fence about whether to pay a
premium or not, they are usually already lacking any
specific purpose that makes them know they need to spend a
lot more...

For $150 you also have a faster system than what was
possible a few years ago, with few if any "killer apps" that
need more performance than we had then, though watching HD
video seems to be more popular now so a system at least
capable of 1080p playback would be nice, but with today's
IGP accelerated HD decoding that can be had on a new $150
upgrade and the CPU itself might even be able to do it alone
in software.

I was more or less addressing the OP, who was trying to
decide between a performance Core 2 Quad, or Extreme.
In the case of the quad, it's probably budget neutral to go
for a Core i7, and for the Extreme, there's a financial advantage
with the Core i7 Extreme. *It's a lot less expensive than the
Core 2 Extreme, for a lot more computing power.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In the end I just to decided get another high end laptop before the
year ends/. ....
There is already a corei7 powered notebook with about 8 -12 Gigs or
RAM, .......I don't see much advantage with desktops now knowing that
an equally powered notebook can do the job as well....plus the bonus
of portability....Upgrading is not a big issue with a fully loaded
unit anyway which I think will provide me with years of pure
enjoyment....
Thanks for all your input....
Roy

On Thu, 21 May 2009 04:30:33 -0700 (PDT), Roy
wrote:


In the end I just to decided get another high end laptop before the
year ends/. ....
There is already a corei7 powered notebook with about 8 -12 Gigs or
RAM, .......I don't see much advantage with desktops now knowing that
an equally powered notebook can do the job as well....plus the bonus
of portability....Upgrading is not a big issue with a fully loaded
unit anyway which I think will provide me with years of pure
enjoyment....
Thanks for all your input....
Roy

With a good high-end SSD, a laptop can do quite well. With
a mechanical HDD, or even the few laptops that can fit two
mechanical HDD, a desktop is still substantially faster due
to 2.5" HDD bottlenecking the laptop.

Naturally it depends upon the use, and as you wrote
portability is a big plus. I wouldn't necessarily count on
many years of use of a higher end laptop though, some people
get lucky, usually those using it as a desktop replacement
where they seldom move it around much, but it's all too
common to get only 2 to 4 years out of a laptop these days,
even the high end ones have most of their addt'l cost put
into the performance specs unless you get something
especially ruggedized like a Toughbook. I'd definitely take
the extended warranty on a high end laptop if you want long
life, though I seldom if ever take the extended warranty on
anything else I buy.

On May 22, 2:30*am, kony wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2009 04:30:33 -0700 (PDT), Roy

wrote:
In the end I just to decided *get another high end laptop before the
year ends/. * *....
There is already a corei7 powered notebook with about 8 -12 Gigs or
RAM, .......I don't see much advantage with desktops now knowing that
an equally powered notebook can do the job as well....plus the bonus
of portability....Upgrading is not a big issue with a fully loaded
unit anyway which *I think will provide me with years of *pure
enjoyment....
Thanks for all your input....
Roy

With a good high-end SSD, a laptop can do quite well. *With
a mechanical HDD, or even the few laptops that can fit two
mechanical HDD, a desktop is still substantially faster due
to 2.5" HDD bottlenecking the laptop. *

Naturally it depends upon the use, and as you wrote
portability is a big plus. *I wouldn't necessarily count on
many years of use of a higher end laptop though, some people
get lucky, usually those using it as a desktop replacement
where they seldom move it around much, but it's all too
common to get only 2 to 4 years out of a laptop these days,
even the high end ones have most of their addt'l cost put
into the performance specs unless you get something
especially ruggedized like a Toughbook. *I'd definitely take
the extended warranty on a high end laptop if you want long
life, though I seldom if ever take the extended warranty on
anything else I buy.

Thanks kony...
I think that is the way ......and yes indeed another desktop
replacement is my target likely in the 17-18.4 inch
size category with WUXGA screen of course. Anyway I always ensure
that it had a matching heavy duty
rugged case or back pack to carry....
I hope that by the end of the this year time, the Window 7 is already
up and running, but I seldom subscribe to extended warranty,
as from my experience most high end desktop replacement systems had
good build quality....

You are right also , with high specs unit I can probably squeeze up to
4 years for quality use,

BTW, I'm not a fan of toughbook (with milspec quality build)as its
only features is ruggedness and not much on performance that can
compete
with an average desktops....

"Roy" wrote:

Besides being not a kid anymore fascination with games is of less
importance( if that its the main issue for the necessity of upgrading
less than 2 years).

You might be surprised at the number of "not kids anymore" who are avid
gamers.

Jon

On May 22, 7:35*pm, "Jon Danniken"
wrote:
"Roy" wrote:

Besides being not a kid anymore fascination with games is of less
importance( if that its the main issue for the necessity of upgrading
less than 2 years).

You might be surprised at the number of "not kids anymore" who are avid
gamers.

Jon

Yeah,,,I have seen some people in their 40's to 50's playing crisis
and warcraft....... But not ialways n the same skill
category aswith the younger generation....
This impliies that whatever games you play, virtual or physical games,
quick reflexes is big advantage than experience......