Should i upgrade?

Should u upgrade ?????

  • Yes get the upgrade (explaining why)

    Votes: 2 11.1%

  • Not worth the upgrade (please give reasons)

    Votes: 11 61.1%

  • Look into alternative components (Please specify)

    Votes: 5 27.8%
  • Total voters
    18
Performance vs Price not worth the upgrade. Your system is good...I know this because my system is similar :P

Wait for the 6 cores to drop in price and your Q6600 start to fail in games THEN upgrade. Perhaps in a few months 8 cores will be out. At this point I still max any game I want so no sense i ndoing it.
 
2048Megabytes said:
In my opinion the only component worth upgrading is your hard drive. A quality solid state drive would definitely decrease your drive load times.

OCZ Agility Series OCZSSD2-1AGT60G 2.5" 60 Gigabyte Solid State Drive - $179
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227461
Click to expand...

I agree but man I hate to fork that kinda cash for such a small amount of space given how much windows 7 takes (which you can't delete all the crap/drivers from the install)
The life improve on them if your active on it? That imo is what is flawed with SSD drives the most. The limited writes are easy to do if your a active downloader (demos patches etc)

If I ever see a 120GB for that price id buy one just to check it out though.
 
Nevakonaza said:
Upgrade the ram? if i did it would probably be 1066Mhz like you have yourself,But there wouldnt be much diffrence going from 932Mhz to 1066 imo i probably wouldnt notice any speed increase.

I might just hold on to what i have now then,give it a good clean spring clean,I was thinking of changing my cpu cooler to a Corsair H50....at least if i get that now ican use it for my next buildas its LGA 775,AM3,1156,1366 ready.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize you had faster RAM :cool: I noticed a performance increase on Windows 7 when I upgraded from 4 to 6GB of RAM, and I noticed even more of an improvement when I went from 6 to 8GB of RAM :cool:
 
I agree with everyone else, I wouldn't upgrade either. You have a pretty sweet rig, maybe wait 'til later this year and see what happens.
 
Twist86 said:
I agree but man I hate to fork that kinda cash for such a small amount of space given how much windows 7 takes (which you can't delete all the crap/drivers from the install)
Click to expand...

How much space does Windows 7 take on a hard drive? I know Vista takes around 15 gigabytes of hard drive space before the System Restore starts using storage space.
 
Until SSDs are more reasonable in price, im sticking with the Raid 0 array I made. I have 8 hard disk drives running in a Raid 0 and a 2tb partition (max bootable) and I get a C drive transfer rate of 605mb/s according to HD Tune.... :) It costs £240 for a 2TB partition with over 600mb read speed. Its well worth it!
 
I would likely never do RAID 0 because if one of the hard drives fails there goes all your data and I also dual boot. Are any redundant array of independant disk setups out there able to increase hard drive read and write speeds without risk of data loss?
 
I only have the OS on the C drive, all documents etc are backed up on another drive. However, you can get a Raid 0 + 1, but requires double the amount of disks. That gives performance and a real-time backup.

But the chances of a failure is extremely low with modern hard drives.
 
2048Megabytes said:
I would likely never do RAID 0 because if one of the hard drives fails there goes all your data and I also dual boot. Are any redundant array of independant disk setups out there able to increase hard drive read and write speeds without risk of data loss?
Click to expand...

RAID 5 has striping and redundancy and will auto rebuild. In my personal opinion RAID 5 is a server side technology more so than an end user technology.
 
RAID 5 is also very expensive to set up from what I know. You might as well just go with solid state disks rather than a RAID 5 setup.
 
2048Megabytes said:
How much space does Windows 7 take on a hard drive? I know Vista takes around 15 gigabytes of hard drive space before the System Restore starts using storage space.
Click to expand...

Mine is currently up to 19GB but take into consideration a 60GB SSD = 58-57GB
If I had to guess about 5-6GB is drivers I will never use and the rest are all old and outdated so I would never use anyways :P

Wish I could find a solid method to remove them. My buddy gave me a stripped copy of my Vista and its install was 10GB after 2 years worth of patches. Sadly no longer live up north so can't lend him my 7 disc to do the same to it :P
 
Gareth said:
I only have the OS on the C drive, all documents etc are backed up on another drive. However, you can get a Raid 0 + 1, but requires double the amount of disks. That gives performance and a real-time backup.

But the chances of a failure is extremely low with modern hard drives.
Click to expand...
1st: Its redundancy, not backup. Never confuse the two, backup is a physical hard copy incase of file loss or accidental deletion, redundancy is just a mirror copy of your hard drive at any given time. I personally prefer Raid 5 to Raid 0 + 1, redundancy as well as striping.

2nd: Not quite, all drives are mechanical and will fail at some point, and after looking at all of seagate's recent issues such as the 7200.11's, it makes me even more worried. For an OS drive, a 30gb SSD is plenty sufficient. Also, when it comes to read speeds, your 8 drives are severely limited by that onboard controller, most modern hard drives have at least ~100mb/s read rates, and even with those great read rates you won't see the benefits that an SSD will provide you with. Also, buy running 8 drives, your MTBF is lowered by a factor of eight times.
 
I vote no. Kinda expensive for their performance. i9 rumored to be out sooner than later id wait for that and then go with a cheap model of that or an i7 which prices should drop.
 
Matthew1990 said:
He got that mobo from me :D

Cheers! :P
Click to expand...

Yeah its been a great board,Overclocking was a pain at first because some of the stuff in the bios id never heard of lol,But after a bit of research i got it all running overclocked and nicely running.

thanks again Matt :)
 
I wouldn't upgrade yet, you won't nice any difference really. The Q6600 is still a great CPU for gaming because of it's large cache size. You would not even notice any difference going with a Q9650 on your current setup.

Go for the socket 1366 intel 6 core CPU's when the price comes down some...probably about 6 months to a year. Your current setup is plenty good until then. The 1090T is simply 6 deneb cores, nothing special at all...and the price reflects that being as cheap as they are. The intel hex core (the 980x) is a thousand bucks, and for good reason. 32nm + 12mb L3 cache + 12 threads = a special chip (right now and even a year from now will still be a beast of a chip). A year from now the 980x will probably be about the same price as the 1090T is now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top