Just how many machines are you running now??!

You suggest a 920, and part of me is intrigued, but it's just not that cheap. For everybody else, my situation is as follows......

Current gaming setup is an XPS Dell laptop with a C2D @ 2Ghz, 2gig of RAM and a 512mb 7900GTX running XP Pro SP3, plumbed into a 20" 1680x1050 Sammy. It runs GRAW and CoH ok with a fair bit turned on, but it's obviously been a bit behind for a while as I bought it 3yrs ago.

Main desktop is a dual core 939 Athlon 3800+ overclocked to 2.2Ghz with 2gig of RAM and a 4350. This is feeding my TV and surround setup in the lounge on Win 7 Pro. I still play Deus Ex on it and have been meaning to get around to UT99!! However, it's main purpose is just browsing and media.

They both work fine for pretty much everything I do, but I miss proper gaming. My laptop is starting to overheat now and sometimes bluescreens mid-GRAW (which is extremely irritating). I want to try Arma II and BFBC2 and Starcraft II and loads of other stuff. I'd also like to be able to rip CDs to FLACs quicker. Finally, I have 4 HDDs in the desktop and my case won't take any more. I'm gonna run out of space again in the next couple of months and another HDD means another case, which means another machine really as mine works perfectly well and is more use as a complete setup without the faff of rehousing it all.

So.... according to Bit-Techs article on multi-core gaming, most games are fine with a dual core CPU. Some fair better with 3 cores, but after that, it really plateaus. In light of my wish to game, it seems dual core would be ok for now. However, with my current machine having managed 5yrs, I'd like to look to the future a little with my next purchase.
Options:
a) i3-530 for cheapness and mental overclockability to 4Ghz+
32nm, power/heat efficient, fast. Compared to my Athlon will be lightning fast.
Will it last 5yrs? In an H55 mobo, my upgrade options are limited to current 1156 CPUs and on the several years scale, will the difference between an i3-530 @ 4ghz and an i7-860 @ 4ghz be that huge? (Aside from the two extra cores obviously!)

b) i5-750 for more power and longevity
Not only great for games, but 4 cores is more future proof and will do more stuff.
Same problem with mobos though, limited to 1156. Also 45nm, so hotter and thirstier. That said, the extra juice may make it last longer.

c) i7-920 for even more power and also longevity
Great chip no doubt. But also also offers the future upgrade of a tock 32nm hex core 980 on the same board. Is definitely overkill right now, but could well last the best for my needs.
Far more costly! Same problems with juice and heat @ 130w TDP.

Thoughts??

Currently I'm running 4 i7 920's + a few q6600's etc & the macs.

A lot depends on budget & purpose but if it's just for gaming then a dual core would do for now however overclocking it to 4GHz would start to take the tdp to close to an i7 quad.

Both intel sockets will be replaced in a year or twos time so both will start to become old tech.

The P55/1156 combo would allow you to start with a dual then upgrade to a quad or guad with ht later however the cost of i7's on 1156 makes them not really worth it so there will be less available in the 2nd hand market later on. The most common chip is the i5 750 but I expect these won't be cheap on the 2nd hand market unless there's a flood of people upgrading to a new socket.

There's currently good prices on the 1366 i7 920/930's which run well at stock & most will hit 4GHz with little effort. You could run stock until it runs slow then OC as you need it. You can also turn off cores on a lot of mobos if you're really worried about power draw.
You then have the option of hex & potentially octo core cpus.

Personally I'd go i7 as I like the power & futureproofing they hold but it all depends on what sort of budget you want to stick to.

I'm no expert, but won't overclocking the nuts off a processor drastically reduce the odds of it lasting 5 years?

My E5300 will go from 2.6GHz to 3.8Ghz, but the only changes I saw were a jump in power consumption (~20% of the whole system!) and better benchmark scores. There was no noticeable difference in gameplay (MW2 level games, high detail). Then my RAM blew up so I leave it at stock these days.

Of course, for you it may go better, but for my particular system there is no reason to upgrade. (If I were to get a higher resolution monitor, I would need a better graphics card, but then again I'm probably better off not getting into that cycle )

Firstly, my Athlon is overclocked from 1.8 to 2.3ghz and has been for at least 3yrs. That might not sound like a lot, but for that chip it is! I'm not expecting to run things at max overclock straight away, but having the option is important to me.

I'm looking at ArmA II and maybe even FSX if I can. So I think at that level of games, things are different to MW2, which would probably run on my Athlon if I had a beefy enough GPU! On the resolution point, I'm a bit screwed, because my PC is currently attached to my 32" HDTV. So 1920x1080 is what I need. I do have a 20" monitor which will be fine for taking places, but I'd like to game on my TV at home.

Sas, I'm not worried about old tech so much. Just want something that will last as well as my Athlon. A 920 would be massive overkill for me right now, but should last bloody ages right? Will also be good for FSX and a couple of other things and I could hope to keep it for ages - even at 2.66ghz?

I think if I went 1156, i5-750 would have to be it, because like you say, there won't be many upgrade options (if any) without changing mobos. So I would need to start at a reasonable point. With the 760 coming out soon, maybe the 750 will drop in price a little....

As I see it, there's either i5-750, or i7-920. I've done a major post over at Bit Tech about it. What do people think about the two?

FSX is very CPU hungry.

The 920 would be ideal as it'll present itself as 8 cpu's to the program.
I wouldn't see the need to upgrade the 920 for ages (especially as it could be overclocked if you needed to or upgraded to hex core if you really had to)

That totally makes sense, but I've obviously got to look at budget. Although it would be nice to try FSX, I've never played any of them and it's not a dealbreaker. Bear in mind atm, a decent GPU is £250, which is a ton of cash before you even consider powering, housing and cooling it all.

But aside from hyper-threading and more memory bandwidth, what's a 920 offer me over a 750? Presumably the clock speeds available both stock and overclocked are very similar?

Have you read the Toms Hardware forum – CPU Best Buy tables – very good at different price points plus some good in depth analysis

CLICKY

Memory bandwidth becomes increasingly important as you ramp up the clockspeed.
The faster you go the more bandwidth you need, that's when triple channel comes in to it's own (otherwise you starve the cores of data so they're sitting around doing nothing).

HT & bandwidth are the biggest gains for the 920, the fact the socket also supports more upgrades is another plus for me.

Thanks, I'll take a look.

Sas, I realise the tech behind it, but what I mean is, is HT and triple channel worth the extra over a chip that's as quick? I will after all, get to keep my memory for 1155 or 2011 if I go 1156. But if I go 1366, I can't translate triple channel to anything else on the roadmap.

All depends on the deals that are around.
If there was only £30-60 in it I'd go 1366 if it's nearer £100 then it's more of a bigger decision

Fair play. I'll start some preliminary pricing.....

Hifi, that listing says there's no point in anything over an i5 and I can totally see their point. But that doesn't account for longevity, or anything other than gaming. Pricing will be key....

Oh dear....

i5-750 £159
GA-P55M-UD2 £88
4gig XMS3 £87
Total = £334

i7-920 OEM £186
GA-X58-UD3R £159
6gig XMS3 £133
Total = £478

Not even close to £100, let alone £60. May have to look at AMD....