How smoked is my system? - Page 2

Dubslow · 2012-10-11, 16:55

A modern quad core could smoke the Core 2 quads by an order of magnitude (at least). I'm pretty sure that from a performance/price perspective, buying a new computer would still have been better (but obviously performance isn't your only concern, and total price is very important as well).

NBtarheel_33 · 2012-10-15, 10:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubslow

A modern quad core could smoke the Core 2 quads by an order of magnitude (at least). I'm pretty sure that from a performance/price perspective, buying a new computer would still have been better (but obviously performance isn't your only concern, and total price is very important as well).

Right. These systems first and foremost are for basic computing needs (e-mail, word documents, spreadsheets, etc.). Running GIMPS on these systems is a side thing (e.g. the systems run some days only 6-8 hours). In fact, the 2002/2004 system often runs so little that its PrimeNet moving average drops below 100; it is sometimes booted up so infrequently that it can take a month to complete a TF70 assignment, for example.

As for the E310/E520, it resides in a bedroom, and right now features a Prescott CPU. Between the heat and the fan, you might guess what happens to it at night. So it's lucky to run 6-10 hours a day. I have heard that the Q6700 chip should actually run cooler than the Prescott. Sure would be nice.

Basically what I was interested in was a bit of a performance boost but without breaking the bank just this minute. I thought about building an Ivy Bridge system, but then we're right around the corner from Haswell. I'm thinking that Haswell will be a different socket and chipset from IB, so an IB system might not facilitate an upgrade. But a Haswell system could be upgraded to Broadwell when it comes out.

It was also worth the learning experience opening these systems up and tinkering around. I was able to start with a very simple system and progress to the more advanced. And, had I made a mistake (as I did with the DDR vs. DDR2 in the first place!), it would not have been as expensive as a screw-up with brand new, state of the art components.

So, all in all, I'm pleased. And I'm sure that there will be some market (even $50-$100) for these systems for the next couple of years at least, in case I decide to sell and do a real upgrade.

henryzz · 2012-10-16, 11:38

I know from looking around myself for possible upgrades to a Q6600 that something like a i5-2500K system would run twice as fast as a Q6600.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Smoked 4 sticks of DDR3-1600 Today	flashjh	GPU to 72	4	2012-06-19 01:12
Smoked a 560ti	oswald	GPU to 72	12	2011-12-31 20:08
Problems with P95 on new system.	keboman	Hardware	21	2006-01-13 17:09
System advice	lozcs	Hardware	7	2004-11-02 18:17
system instabil	Mr. Pipi	Hardware	8	2004-10-01 17:16

2012-10-11, 16:55	#12
Dubslow Basketry That Evening! "Bunslow the Bold" Jun 2011 40<A<43 -89<O<-88 3·29·83 Posts	A modern quad core could smoke the Core 2 quads by an order of magnitude (at least). I'm pretty sure that from a performance/price perspective, buying a new computer would still have been better (but obviously performance isn't your only concern, and total price is very important as well).

2012-10-16, 11:38	#14
henryzz Just call me Henry "David" Sep 2007 Cambridge (GMT/BST) 2³·3·5·7² Posts	I know from looking around myself for possible upgrades to a Q6600 that something like a i5-2500K system would run twice as fast as a Q6600.