So at home, in the cellophane, sits my copy of Windows 7 Pro. It's not getting unwrapped because my machine isn't really up to the task due to not enough RAM, an old graphics card and some incompatible software. However, the only thing that is really missing from my machine at the moment is gaming. It's reasonably happy doing everything else, and although it could be quicker with some things (ripping CDs, HD acceleration and general multitasking) it's far from crap. It is however, quite old.

Core Spec:
Athlon X2 3800+ socket 939 dual core 2.0ghz
2gig (DDR) RAM
128mb 6600GT PCI-E

Given that my chassis is too small to fit anything else in and the cooling is looking a bit old with just 2 x 120mm fans, I will need a new one. My PSU is "only" 480w, which I suspect would require an upgrade for a modern CPU and GPU, especially being as I have 3 or 4 HDDs at any given time.

Anyway, main debate point. This could easily turn into an £800/900 build by the time I replace everything but my HDDs, or I could work hard to keep it in the £400ish range.

I've been watching the prices of i7 920s daily for a while now. I'm half expecting them to go up or be pulled altogether. But I ask you, do I need all that? What are peoples opinions? I wonder if all modern CPUs (since hitting the mhz wall) are much of a muchness if you're just doing average tasks and some gaming. It seems that quad-core is only just starting to come into programming and even then dual or triple works almost as well. Every benchmark you see says that there's only 10 or 15% difference between the latest stuff when it's overclocked. And pretty much anything now will hit late 3s or 4ghz on air.

So does everybody (me especially) need a 2.66ghz Core i7, or will a 3ghz Phenom (for half the money), do? Discuss.....

Not enough RAM? It has double minimum amount and the processor is also twice as fast as "needed"... The 6600GT is a little down on power, but is enough for normal (non-gaming) use - heck, my laptop has onboard Intel HD4500 graphics.

Personally, I'd go for the Core i7, no question.

If I wanted to spend as little as possible but have a fairly quick PC running Windows 7 I would still look at the Intel £50-ish range. You'll get something along the lines of 2.2-2.6Ghz which will happily Overclock with absolutely no effort at all to 3.2-4.0Ghz depending how far you want to push it. OK its not going to destroy frame rates in the latest games like an i7 but for everything else (web, email, ripping, videos, streaming, etc) I cant imagine needing more? Chuck in 4GB of PC2-6400 for £60-ish, a cheap P31/P43 board for £50-70ish and a graphics card depending what you want to do with it.

Just my two pence worth.

I think I'm giving up on the whole PC thing to be honest. I barely use my PC for gaming anymore (some ArmaII on a Friday night is about it, although I just got Crysis it play for the first time ever) and stick to the Xbox to be honest so I'm tempted to go for Mac for all my photo/video duties and scrap the PC altogether!

If you went for a bundle you could get

i7 Processor
Motherboard
6gb DDR3 (no real point getting less as it's not futureproof)

No need for a new GPU as yours is PCI-e

Would your power supply be an issue?

OR

If you go Core 2 Duo I will have some bits to sell soon, will probably sell it in a bundle as it's cheaper on postage

So nobody thinks the AMD stuff is worth a look?

It just seems that everybody "has to have" the latest thing and that's i7. I used to be one of those people, but now I'm not so sure. It just seems like almost all modern CPUs will perform well in Win 7 and games are more GPU dependant anyway.

Dave, yes my machine will run 7, but not Aero, or 64-bit, or XP mode (which I may not need, but have paid for with Pro). Why i7, no question?

Veato, you're presumably talking about C2D? Should I not at least be going for something with DDR3? Don't most benchmarks say that the AMD stuff beats C2D? I know what you mean about giving up though. I'm wondering if that's where I'm at. Even if I'm not, it seems that above 3ghz, going incrementally faster costs a lot of money.

Fin, if I upgrade, a new GPU is absolutely necessary, as one on the main reasons to upgrade would be gaming, closely followed by Win7 (with aero). I wonder if the PSU would be alright for a low key system, but I'm not 100% sure on that.

It's just that when it comes down to it, it's all money isn't it? And that's money that could take me on holiday, get me out of debt, go towards a new TV etc. etc.

I'm not sure about the AMD's. The last time I looked (a while back to be honest) an overclocked £50 Intel was the performance bargain to be had (I presume due to its overclocking ability). Maybe thats not the case anymore?

Don't get me wrong I haven't given this much thought since I'm on my lunch , but wouldn't a decent C2D/board/cheap mid-range GPU do you for 7? You might not even need to OC them, but you could presumably

As you say, it seems to me you're out quite a bit more money otherwise for performance you generally won't use day to day by the sound of it...

Also, at the minute I don't really see the point in DDR3 over DDR2 - am I missing something or what are the projected benefits?

I don't think it's worth a look simply as Core 2 Duo is cheap now, and the performance is better. i7 is the thing as it's the newest thing and performance is a big jump



Well I suggested upgrading some of it, saying that a 4850 is £80 or less now and a 4870 can be had for around £100

What PSU do you have currently?

you could go i5 with a p55 motherboard from £90 upwards, i5 @ £150 and £85 for 4GB of DDR3 1600mhz

According to benches from bit-tech and Hexus, C2D is all but demolished by the current Phenoms from AMD. They're supposedly on a par with C2Q and almost as good as i7 for certain tasks. They are however, significantly cheaper than i7. Not so sure about i5 though and they haven't been any new benches directly comparing AMD, i5 and i7 in the last month or two.

Whilst the performance of i7 is a big jump, anything would be for me. I agree on the graphics card front. I'm not too bothered about that, as decent mid-range performance is all I need. Currently running a Samsung 20" TN as my main display with a CTX 17" as secondary. I may consider hanging on for that though, as I'd like a little more grunt for full HD if I plug a TV in over the next 6mths (relatively likely). So either a 4890 or possibly will consider one of the new 5 series once the cheaper ones arrive with custom coolers.

My PSU is the former CPC elite Tagan 2Force 480w. However, I don't think it will have aged well. Especially moving from an 89w dual core chip to quad and probably 125-140w, not to mention my GPU just uses the socket and not any external plugs.

I was kind thinking that if I had to replace my motherboard, CPU, RAM, chassis and GPU, then I'm practically at a new machine and I could leave the old one running XP or Linux and use it for file storage and odds and sods...?

Ernie, a C2D would "do me" I'm sure. However, I'd be buying old. Not massively excited about that. Also, any DDR3 I buy could possibly be carried over to future upgrades. DDR2 can't be. Then of course, there's the architecture improvements, cache, lack of northbridge etc.

http://www.ebuyer.com/product/168085

DDR3 LGA775
http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/ASUS-P5P ... I-RAID-ATX

They aren't exactly expensive for what you get, you can even get combo boards you can use ddr2 or ddr3 with (not at the same time though) as a stop-gap for an upgrade

I would avoid i5 like the plague, it's already a dead format like 754 was for AMD as there is no path to upgrade in future without a new motherboard AND cpu

AM3/775 6 of one, half a dozen of the other really. I went 775 purely because it's easy to get good stuff very cheaply, I have seen E6600's go for £40 which is good, and there is no issue in putting an old 775 Core 2 duo in another core 2 duo motherboard.

Thanks Fin, interesting. Thing is though, it really would be a stop-gap. After all, if those chipsets had been able to really take advantage of DDR3 why didn't everyone and their dog jump on the bandwagon?

If I was staying dual core, I'd definitely either go Phenom X2 550 BE with a cheap motherboard, or might consider a late C2D. However, I'm not that excited about buying a Q6600, even if I could still find one. At 65nm there's power and heat to consider too. I like the fact that the 45nm stuff is cooler and more efficient.

That said, I'm torn in half. Half of me knows that quad-core is still going to be largely irrelevant for a while yet compared to clock speed in both gaming and general tasks (for me at least). On the other hand, the reason I wanted i7, was because it was looking like the 920 (or 930 perhaps) was gonna be the new Q6600. Something you could buy and just run and run and run for a couple of three years at least.

Interesting what you say about i5. I was inclined to think that having read extensively since it's release, but a lot of people are raving. When you look at total cost (CPU, MB, RAM) it seems that i7 is around £100 more than i5. Which on the one hand, doesn't seem that much. However, it's 25%. That said, I'm sure you'd see around that kind of performance increase and then there's the longevity to consider.

The reason the AMD stuff appealed was because it offered potential for an upgrade path (on the CPU front), the performance was superior to C2D and as got as, if not better than C2Q, but it was dirt cheap. My current system originally had a 3000+ in it, but I managed to pick up one of the last socket 939 dual core chips for just £40. The thing is, like everything, what does one ACTUALLY need? Of course the problem with that question when spending hundreds of pounds, is that you need to address the future as much as possible, as well as current needs.

A few did, but the reason they didn't is because DDR3 is still very expensive compared to DDR2, a 2x2gb set of good clocking DDR2 RAM is £50ish, DDR3 is nearer £120 for the same, and the cost of using DDR2 on a motherboard is cheaper, and only slightly worse for performance.

I went 754 initially with AMD, the price was slightly lower so it was a good way at the time, bit me in the bum though when I had single channel memory and no dual cores in future.

What will you use it for? I have a Q9300, 8gb RAM, P35 motherboard and a 4870 which cost £500ish in total at the time I bought each bit £140 on cpu, £80 on memory, £85 on mobo, £175 gpu) but it was bought over time which saved me money in some areas (memory and cpu mainly) as I could use existing parts until I switched over.

The initial price may look appealing, but if you tend to bulk upgrade as opposed to single bits then that is fine, but if you plan to upgrade a cpu/motherboard on it's own you are limiting your upgrade options for the sake of a quick saving which could cost a lot more in future

Perhaps this is the crux of the issue. However, it supposes that I care enough about specs. Interesting point though.

So at this stage, you would go i7, x58 and 6gig, whilst retaining everything else? Then do the rest a piece at a time.....?

i5 or in fact the skt 1156 is not a dead route, I'm not sure how you concluded that finlay. It is a cheaper alternative to the skt 1366 which in fact is the exact reason for the range.
With the i7 going on to the 1156 the range will be more positioned to replace the aging C2D market, with the 1366 being for the top end of the market i.e. extreme usage.

I personally think it's a good platform and should be considered as a better alternative to the AMD3.