Need to upgrade processor and MOBO - do I really need hyper threading?

[JohnnyScience]

I'm currently running this processor and MOBO:

Newegg.com - Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz 2 x 4MB L2 Cache LGA 775 Quad-Core Processor BX80562Q6600

Newegg.com - ASUS P5K EPU LGA 775 Intel P35 ATX Intel Motherboard

It's just not fast enough for me.

I was leaning towards the i7 because it seems to be the fastest processor for around $300.

But apparently these new intel chips have sandy bridge which is a form of hyper threading.

I'm just trying to figure out if I truly need the processor with hyper threading. I understand it basically turns the 4 cores into 8 virtual cores, but does it apply this speed to all computer programs and functions?

I run 3 monitors and constantly doing multiple things including web design, graphic design etc.

I also plan on maxing my ram at the 32gb the MOBO will allow to help this system run as fast as possible.

 

[ignatzatsonic]

I understand it basically turns the 4 cores into 8 virtual cores, but does it apply this speed to all computer programs and functions?

Take a look at the performance section here:

Hyper-threading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It helps under certain circumstances, but is not a substitute for additional cores. How much it would help in any situation varies, depending on the software involved.

 

[pparks1]

But apparently these new intel chips have sandy bridge which is a form of hyper threading.

Sandy Bridge is the codename for the 2nd generation of Intel Core i3/i5/i7 processors. It has nothing to do with hyperthreading. Some of the Sandy Bridge processors have hyperthreading (i7-2600k), while others do not (i5-2500k).

 

[JohnnyScience]

Hmm, it seems that HT is one of those sake oil technologies that may or may not improve your computers speed

So I guess do you take plunge and spend the extra money in hopes of it benefiting you?

I was looking on newegg and they have the i7 2600 for $299 & the i7 2600k for $319

They seem to be identical in specs, does anyone know what the 2600k brings to the table over the 2600?

I figure I will go with the i7 since it's the faster of the cores at a reasonable price.

Is there another i7 around the same price range that is considerably faster than the 2600 series?

 

[JohnnyScience]

Just out of curiosity is this one a lot better?

Newegg.com - Intel Core i7-970 Gulftown 3.2GHz 6 x 256KB L2 Cache 12MB L3 Cache LGA 1366 130W Six-Core Desktop Processor BX80613I7970

The MHz is slower but it has 6 cores

Will the speed of this one blow the i7 2600k series out of the water? (it better for the price difference!)

They have just a recertified chip for cheaper here, but is going with a rectified chip a risky situation?

Newegg.com - Recertified: Intel Core i7-970 Gulftown 3.2GHz 6 x 256KB L2 Cache 12MB L3 Cache LGA 1366 130W Six-Core Desktop Processor I7 970 (SLBVF)

 

[rraod]

You can always switch off HT feature if you do not want it.

 

[JohnnyScience]

Yeah but I'd rather not spend the extra money if I'm just going to shut it off.

I'd like to hear some input on that 6 core I linked to.

 

[Sardonicus]

I'm currently running this processor and MOBO:

Newegg.com - Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz 2 x 4MB L2 Cache LGA 775 Quad-Core Processor BX80562Q6600

Newegg.com - ASUS P5K EPU LGA 775 Intel P35 ATX Intel Motherboard

It's just not fast enough for me.

I was leaning towards the i7 because it seems to be the fastest processor for around $300.

But apparently these new intel chips have sandy bridge which is a form of hyper threading.

I'm just trying to figure out if I truly need the processor with hyper threading. I understand it basically turns the 4 cores into 8 virtual cores, but does it apply this speed to all computer programs and functions?

I run 3 monitors and constantly doing multiple things including web design, graphic design etc.

I also plan on maxing my ram at the 32gb the MOBO will allow to help this system run as fast as possible.

For the applications you're running a hyper-threaded processor is what you want. When needed the CPU offloads the other tasks to the other cores. I'd suggest the i7-2600. The "k" processors are basically for people that want to overclock their processors, way past the factory clock.

 

[DeaconFrost]

I'm not sure what you are reading that makes you think HT is a bad thing, but it isn't. It isn't the same as adding an extra physical core, but for applications that can benefit from it, it does help. I have an i7-2600 that I am running now after upgrading from a Q9550 and I see a huge difference in my encoding tasks.

 

[ignatzatsonic]

Just out of curiosity is this one a lot better?

Newegg.com - Intel Core i7-970 Gulftown 3.2GHz 6 x 256KB L2 Cache 12MB L3 Cache LGA 1366 130W Six-Core Desktop Processor BX80613I7970

The MHz is slower but it has 6 cores

Will the speed of this one blow the i7 2600k series out of the water? (it better for the price difference!)

No.

PassMark Intel vs AMD CPU Benchmarks - High End

The 970 would be preferable only for certain specific tasks that can take advantage of the additional cores. The typical user does not regularly perform those tasks.

 

[sygnus21]

I'm not sure what you are reading that makes you think HT is a bad thing, but it isn't. It isn't the same as adding an extra physical core, but for applications that can benefit from it, it does help. I have an i7-2600 that I am running now after upgrading from a Q9550 and I see a huge difference in my encoding tasks.

Agreed. And as pparks noted, some processors have it, some don't. In all honesty you'd want to get one that does HT as it helps with multi-tasking, something a lot of PC users do... read e-mail, surf the net and listen to music....

Hyper-Threading......

Hyper-threading is an Intel-proprietary technology used to improve parallelization of computations (doing multiple tasks at once) performed on PC microprocessors. For each processor core that is physically present, the operating system addresses two virtual processors, and shares the workload between them when possible. Hyper-threading requires not only that the operating system support multiple processors, but also that it be specifically optimized for HTT[1], and Intel recommends disabling HTT when using operating systems that have not been optimized for this chip feature.

This is a good thing, and does work

As for cost, the technology is imbedded in the processor, IE depending on what processor you get will determine if the tech is incorporated in the chip, not cost. In short you’re paying for the overall performance of the chip, not just one tech spec.
This is nothing to be concerned about.... unless you want it.

 

[sygnus21]

Just out of curiosity is this one a lot better?

Newegg.com - Intel Core i7-970 Gulftown 3.2GHz 6 x 256KB L2 Cache 12MB L3 Cache LGA 1366 130W Six-Core Desktop Processor BX80613I7970

The MHz is slower but it has 6 cores

Will the speed of this one blow the i7 2600k series out of the water? (it better for the price difference!)

No.

PassMark Intel vs AMD CPU Benchmarks - High End

The 970 would be preferable only for certain specific tasks that can take advantage of the additional cores. The typical user does not regularly perform those tasks.

Actually you're looking at two different processor technologies. The i7-970 is an older i7 chip which requires older tech - a 1366 socket (X-58) motherboard.

The i7-2600 is the newer chip requiring a newer motherboard design - 1155 socket, P67 Motherboard for i7-2600, Z68 Motherboard for i7-2600K processors.

Note that the Z is a higher performance board and isn't needed to run a 2600K chip.

So, be very careful when chooing your dhip that you get the right motherboard - i7-900 (X-58 board), i7-2600(K) (p67/Z68 board).

 

[pparks1]

They seem to be identical in specs, does anyone know what the 2600k brings to the table over the 2600?

The K version is "unlocked" meaning that you can go into the BIOS and make adjustments to overclock it and make it run faster. The non-K version does not offer that, as the processor is locked.

I have an i7-2600 that I am running now after upgrading from a Q9550 and I see a huge difference in my encoding tasks.

Can you give me a quantitative value to define "huge". I have a Q9550 myself and I find it super fast for everything I throw at it. Encoding is the only thing that takes me some time. With Sony Vegas Movie Studio 10, I use the the Sony codec and 1 minute of 1920x1080 video from my camcorder takes about 3:30 to re-encode to an MP4 file.


With regards to the questions about the 6 core Intel processors, unless you a specific piece of software which utilizes those extra 2 cores...the performance difference is extremely unlikely to offset the price difference.

 

[DeaconFrost]

It's hardly scientific, as I never took "before" measurements, but my average encoding time for a typical movie with Handbrake going to the Xbox 360 profile went from about 45 minutes down to 25-30 minute range.

 

[pparks1]

It's hardly scientific, as I never took "before" measurements, but my average encoding time for a typical movie with Handbrake going to the Xbox 360 profile went from about 45 minutes down to 25-30 minute range.

Thanks. Nonetheless, it gives me something tangible. For example, some people might consider something that went from 45 to 40 minutes to be a huge improvement...but I personally wouldn't rebuild my rig for 5 minutes. But if you said, it used to take me 45 minutes and now takes 7 minutes....well it becomes very compelling.

As it stands now, I'm going to sit on my Q9550 as I don't encode enough to really justify the expense. And for everything else, including BF3, my machine is more than adequate.

 

[DeaconFrost]

I wouldn't say I upgraded out of necessity. I fell into a great deal on DDR3 memory, and that got the ball rolling. Once the upgrade bug started taking hold, there was little I could do.

 

[pparks1]

I wouldn't say I upgraded out of necessity. I fell into a great deal on DDR3 memory, and that got the ball rolling. Once the upgrade bug started taking hold, there was little I could do.

I understand that. I'm hesitate to change anything in my rig as it's 100% stable, fast as hell, and completely paid for.

 

[sygnus21]

I can almost guarantee you'll see some performance difference going from a Q9550 to the newer processors of today.

However If you're happy with what you have, you're happy.... but there's no doubt you'll see a performance difference considering the tech used with the newer processor - MB, RAM, CPU.

 

[pparks1]

I can almost guarantee you'll see some performance difference going from a Q9550 to the newer processors of today.

I know I will see SOME.....but it's just I don't think that I will see enough for "most" of the things that I do to make it worthwhile. And yeah, even though my PC is over 2 years old, I'm outrageously happy. I work with computers and servers day in and day out...so I've actually lost interest in playing around as much at home.

 

[sygnus21]

That's understandable. At this moment I'm completely happy with my i7-950 system

I also still have my Q6600 system that works like a charm as well.