Computer upgrade question

[cupton1]

My friends say I have a killer gaming pc at the moment, but im thirsty for more as always.

My system specs:

Processor: Intel C2D E6550 @ 2.33ghz
Video Card: Evga 8800GT o/c edition
Motherboard: Gigabyte 650sli-ds4
Memory: 4 gigs Crucial Ballistix tracers DDR2 800
Power Supply: SLI ready 700watt
Monitor: 19 inch LCD
Internet connection: 10mb broadband
Operating system: Vista

Question is this:

Should I upgrade the processor to the Intel Q6600 quad core or should I purchase a second 8800GT for SLI configuration?
My main gaming consist of Team Fortress 2 and CS source but i do occasionally play COD4 and Crysis.
Any input would be appreciated

[Wraith]

You shouldn't update to a Q6600, since it's obsolete. The Q9300 is the new quad core that has taken over the Q6600's price range (or will, once the prices stabilize). You don't need to upgrade.

SLI and crossfire are usually pointless. Some games are able to utilize it, and fewer are able to gain a large amount from it. Wait for the next gen from ATI and nVidia, and almost certainly a single card will be able to outperform SLI'd 8800GTs. Crysis is not playable at high details with high framerate with any current setup outside of dual 9800 GX2's.

Wait for the next gen.

[Kevman]

My friends say I have a killer gaming pc at the moment, but im thirsty for more as always.

My system specs:

Processor: Intel C2D E6550 @ 2.33ghz
Video Card: Evga 8800GT o/c edition
Motherboard: Gigabyte 650sli-ds4
Memory: 4 gigs Crucial Ballistix tracers DDR2 800
Power Supply: SLI ready 700watt
Monitor: 19 inch LCD
Internet connection: 10mb broadband
Operating system: Vista

Question is this:

Should I upgrade the processor to the Intel Q6600 quad core or should I purchase a second 8800GT for SLI configuration?
My main gaming consist of Team Fortress 2 and CS source but i do occasionally play COD4 and Crysis.
Any input would be appreciated


My computer is original from 2001, in the last six months I've added another 512 Mb of ram making it over 1 gig, a Geforce 7600, and a 660 watt power supply. I now can play every game on the market no problem. Geforce 7600 isn't too expensive, and you could plug it right in to your current setup and have no problems.
Thanks, KP.

[DevilMan]

You get to play the waiting game like me :) Im running a EVGA 8800 GTS 320mb, and it can run any game I play fine, even at high settings. However like most guys, its still not enough. I have a MSI motherboard, and would rather switch to a MSI graphics card so I can utilize MSI's easy overclocking functions that come standard on their motherboards and graphics cards.
So Im just waiting for MSI to come out with a 9800 card so I can get one, or the 8800 GTX or Ultra's price to drop. Ive even thought about running SLi, but since Im running 4 hard drives, these huge 8800 cards wont hardly fit.

If I were you, Id stick with pretty much everything you have and wait for the new graphics cards as well. Your CPU is on the low end of a nice gaming rig, but with the way things are changing right now with computers, your better off just sticking with what works for another year, then re-evaluate then when prices calm down.

[Wraith]

I don't think his CPU should be considered "low end". And if he feels it isn't enough for him, he can easily bump it up to over 3.2ghz with the stock cooler and no vcore bump.

Kevman, the Geforce 7600 is < the 8800GT, but you are right that he really has no reason to upgrade his system.

cupton, the only reason I can think of for you to upgrade would be if you like spending money. Something else you should consider is ditching Vista (aka ME the second).

[cupton1]

I have not had a single problem with the Vista experience. Only con would be that I have the 32 bit version so my 4 gigs of memory is only showed as 3.5
I know my 8800gt beats the newer 9600gt hands down. And in Crysis all settings are auto set to very high when AA is disabled. Im just interested in future-proofing my PC and curious as to which route to go with it. My hard drive is the lowest score on the vista experience with a 5.3 everything else is 5.9 except for the processor which is a 5.7.

The reason for this is simple. Even if you had a 10 second street car, you would still be tinkerin' with it to make it a 9.9 second car wouldnt ya???

Just my theory for what its worth... :D

[Wraith]

Well, it's a little different in the world of computers. Putting money in a high level PC that will last for several years is sort of a waste. As I said, you can overclock the CPU if you like to get more longevity out of it. Money spent now to make the system extremely high end would be better spent in even just one year on the high end level. Usually the difference between high end gaming and extreme gaming is a large price increase for a small performance increase -- i.e. bad price/performance ratio.

The majority of games will not see even a marginal increase in performance going from one to two cores. Most games that do scale with cores, though, will continue to scale to four cores.

Hard drives are relatively cheap when compared to upgrades like graphics cards and CPUs. If you want a faster setup, regardless of how vista rates it, use multiple drives. Contrary to popular belief, RAID 0 will not provide any performance gain for the majority of desktop applications. In theory, it is better for desktop users to have a setup such as:
HDD0, OS -- fast, small drive
HDD1, Swap disk -- fast, small drive
HDD2, Applications disk -- fast large drive
HDD3, Data disk -- fast large drive

Buying an old 36.4GB raptor for the OS is not a bad idea, but somewhat of a waste, since the OS only takes up a gig or 2 (more than that in the case of Vista), but what you can do is use a multiple boots on that disk: 10GB to Vista, 10 to XP, linux, etc.

Make it only about a 4gb partition entirely used for the swap/pagefile. In the case of a multiboot including linux, you would have to have one partition for the windows OSs and one for linux's swap. If you get another 36.4gb raptor to do this job, use the remaining space for another partition.

This is something many people don't realize. An OS partition with 10GB at the beginning of a 250GB hard drive vs a partition the full size of the drive will perform better. When you use a partition the full size (default in most OEMs and default when installing windows) you open the doors for fragmenting to slower parts of the disk. The fastest sectors are in the beginning of the disk. The first partition of the disk will be put on these outer, leading edge, sectors and perform the best.

Considering this, you should also partition up your large data and applications/games drives. If you are using a 500GB drive for these, make a 100GB or so first partition. Use this partition for the data/games/apps that need to perform their best, use a middle partition for less important stuff, and use the remainder for backup and infrequently used apps/games.