February 25th, 2013, 07:04 AM
PC Upgrade - i5 LGA1155 or i7 LGA2011
I am considering upgrading my old Q6600 / U320 SCSI HD / 4GB 1050mhz RAM and wanted some advice.
Do I go for...
Geil EVO 16GB 2400mhz Quad Channel
2 x 1TB SATA III 6GB 64mb cache (Raid 1 Mirror)
ASRock Z77 Pro4
Geil EVO 16GB 2400mhz Dual Channel
2 x 1TB SATA III 6GB 64mb cache (Raid 1 Mirror)
If I am prepared to spend @ £600.00 - £650.00
Perhaps increase the i5 system to 32GB 2400mhz Dual Channel?
Now I know the i5-2500K is loved by overclockers and I currently OC my Q6600 to 3.00ghz and intend to overclock my new rig a little perhaps @4-4.5ghz. (but nothing major!)
However, I do not game like I used to and am not interested in getting a new GFX card let alone multiple, I have a GTX260 which I feel is still OK for the odd game I play and could always buy a 2nd one off eBay and SLi them for very little money!
What I use my PC for mainly is multi-tasking -> music creation / website coding / audio ripping, editing & streaming / email / web surfing / photo editing (occasionally) so will probably have open the following all at once...
A YouTube Video Tutorial
1 or 2 DAW's from the following (EnergyXT, Presonus Studio One V2, Reaper, FL Studio, Ableton or perhaps Cubase if I decide to buy it) and of course the VST's they may be using.
SoundForge WAV Editor
ShoutCast / WinAmp
Windows Media Player,
A text editor (SourceEdit) while working on my website
Maybe a search page as well as perhaps a few other web pages!
Plus occasionally Photoshop
So is the quad channel memory and HT on an i7 a better choice for this type of usage?
I only upgrade @ 5 years and this rig has served me well for nearly 7 as I built it as a Vista machine in 2006 but currently run Win7!, I don't want that pile of poo Windows 8, so will be sticking with my Win7 Ultimate OS.
As DAW's improve they require more and more resources and memory I beleive is key to enable them to not have to disk cache so often eliminating clicks and glitches in playback when you have a load of VST instruments and effects on the go.
I also find putting non-matched memory can make a machine very unstable and so think it best to get a decent amount that are matched together initially, rather than trying to add more later that will either be unstable or mean having to discard any exisitng memory and buy duplicate again!
Your input is appreciated.
February 25th, 2013, 09:21 AM
I would go with I7 because of the HT and increased cache, especially when you are working with so many (resource-heavy) programs.
Don't have enough experience with OC to include this as a factor.
Don't know how much difference there will be with 16GB and 32GB, but if you think the price is fair for the additional 16GB, then why not?
You are right you also have to think about if you want to run dual channel ram.
If the 16GB is in 2x8 module it might be more expensive to upgrade them to 2x16 later.
One thing that came to my mind is which sound card you are using? just thinking it might me worthwhile to get an external card instead of the on-board.
February 25th, 2013, 09:39 AM
I would go with the i7 as well.
I doubt you would see any difference between 16gb and 32gb of memory.
February 25th, 2013, 12:26 PM
I think looking at it, I might as well go I7. though I will probably only get 16GB if I do as there are no 4 x 8GB quad channel kits available that I could find and have been told that 32GB is a bit OTT!
I am sticking with the onboard sound, for the time being and it will do fine for now, as it is in my old rig, but I am running ASIO ;-)
So it's bypassing the MS wavetable crap and drivers!
I might look at getting external ASIO a bit later on, I wasn't really looking to upgrade, it's just my machine has got a bit unstable after 7 years and although a pain to rebuild and re-install, it would be good to clear out the crap that's been insitalled - uninstalled, downloaded and alike over the years.
Start afresh with a new decent spec'd PC and clean install.
Now I know what VSTs I use, DAWs etc, I can get rid of the chaff I've gathered over time with trials and light versions. (LE)
Which should then see me though the next 7+ years.
Well if MS fix Windows that is? If they continue down the path of Windows 8 - I think it could be time for an iMac!
February 25th, 2013, 02:10 PM
Windows 8 is not significantly different from Windows 7 except for the change to the start menu. However, the new start interface will force you to use two features more extensively than you probably have in the past:
1) docking your most-used programs to the task bar
2) starting uncommonly used programs by typing part of their name
Both features are present in Windows 7 too, but many people did not use them because they were so used to having a start menu. However, together those two features provide a more efficient and useful interface than the start menu.
February 25th, 2013, 03:37 PM
Hmm funny, no wonder I was confused. The Danish translation has this in the description:
I thought the "search" field was a great addition to the start menu, as a semi-replacement to the run command. Maybe I'm just too geeky.
Originally Posted by E-Oreo
February 26th, 2013, 04:34 AM
Ok thanks for the input, though I don't want to get into a war over Win 8 OS.
Windows 8 is total disgusting pile of poo, it looks ugly, runs crap in the background you don't want, apps that are nearly imposible to work out how to close and work better on touch screen devices which I don't want; any one touches my nice shiny monitor gets a clip round the ear.
I know this from having installed several Windows 8 machines at work and fixed countless users Windows 8 machines via remote support session who can no longer do their job nor operate their computer due to these aweful changes.
You can install something like Pokki which will give back your 'start menu' and is not a bad fix for Windows 8.
But the day I have to start installing third party apps to fix my OS provider, is when it is time to change my OS provider.
This is my opinion, of which I am entitiled and it is formed from first hand knowledge of the OS. I refuse to run Windows 8 OS on my own PC and no one is going to convince me otherwise regardless of their personal opinion.
So I welcome all input on my possible new PC specifications, but please no more discussion about that crappy OS Windows 8, this is not part of my question or the equasion at hand.
February 27th, 2013, 05:47 AM
i7 is awesome - but with socket 2011 you will waste alot of money for the mainboard.
Originally Posted by 1DMF
Intel® Core™ i7-3770K is my one, think its nearly as good as the 3820, but you have 10x more mainboards, and alot of them are cheaper
February 27th, 2013, 11:28 AM
But then you only get dual channel not quad channel memory?
Dunno, is there a big difference between them?
February 27th, 2013, 01:30 PM
I've never used quad channel memory before, but everything I've read on the matter suggests that the difference is totally negligible. However, that isn't to say there won't be performance differences between the two sockets for other reasons. Generally speaking the newer part is always going to be faster and cost more. It's just a matter of how much faster and how much more it costs, and how much that extra speed is worth to you.
February 28th, 2013, 05:20 AM
Yup, that is normally the bottom line.
I went back and looked at getting just dual channel 16GB with an i7 LGA 1155 , a Z77 mobo plus threw in a cooler, as I need a new one and I save @ £70.00 vs my LGA2011 spec.
Or for @ £70.00 more I get the LGA2011 with quad channel
So although the X79 Mobo is £104.00 more than the Z77 Mobo, the Ivybridge i7 LGA1155 is more than the Sandybridge-E i7 LGA2011 and I have read that Sandybridge overclock better staying cooler than Ivybridge because the Ivybridge overheats easier due to the 22nm cores vs the Sandybridge's 32nm cores.
Perhaps I'll wait till the Mobo's come down in price.
Then again many would spend @ £200.00 on their Mobo when building a new rig anyway, so it's not that big a deal and in the grand scheme of things, is £70.00 that much of a saving?
Plus on top of this I will then have..
1 x Asus P5Q-WS workstation Mobo
1 x Intel Q6600 Core2Quad (with copper cooler)
1 x 15,000 rpm 36GB SCSI (OS) HDD
1 x 10,000 rpm 136GB SCSI (data) HDD
1 x Adaptec U320 133mhz PCI-X SCSI controller
1 x SCSI cable
4 x 1GB OCZ 1050mhz RAM
Which I will be replacing, so some of the cost of the upgrade is going to be mitigated with the sale of these components.
Does anyone have any input as to how much I might get on these second hand parts?
Last edited by 1DMF; February 28th, 2013 at 05:22 AM.
February 28th, 2013, 09:48 AM
You could probably get £15-£30 for the processor and 10k drive (each). The 15k drive might be worth a little more.
The motherboard will probably be a hard sell; not that it has no value, but that there isn't much of a market for used boards like that. I have no idea what you could get for it.
The RAM would cost more than ship to someone than it's worth.
February 28th, 2013, 01:33 PM
I was hoping to get @ £100-£150 for the lot.
Upsetting considering it cost over £1,000 when bought new!
The SCSI cable alone cost £85.00!
But it is 7 years old and the SCSI is even older as I had that in my old Pentium 4 rig though in standard PCI 33mhz slot only in this Asus workstation board did it run @ full spec due to a PCI-X 133mhz slot!
February 28th, 2013, 01:58 PM
That's not too far off, you can probably get something close to £100 for it. You might be able to get more for it if you sell the system as a whole rather than parting it out considering the difficulty of finding buyers for some of the components individually.
March 18th, 2013, 07:36 AM
The I7 clearly has better cache and it has one thing the I5 does not have hyperthreading. If you are running tons of software a better processor will pay for itself in the long run.