Processor Upgrade - Which Core 2 Quad?

[Mike Borok]

I'd like to upgrade my processor to an Intel Core 2 Quad, keeping my XP Home OS *, and trying to decide which processor model to get. I currently have a Core 2 Duo 1.86, other specs in signature below.

My basic issue is, does it pay to just get the fastest processor I can (i.e. Q9650), or is the practical performance difference between that and the Q9550 ($55 less) or the Q9400 ($105 less) not worth the difference in price?

Also, I see that there are 's' versions (low power) for a higher price - I have a desktop - is there any reason to consider these?

These are the relevant compatible models, with newegg prices:
Q9650 3.0 GHz $325
Q9550 2.83GHz $270
Q9550s 2.83GHz $350
Q9450 2.66GHz not found at newegg
Q9400 2.66GHz $220
Q9400s 2.66GHz $300

* If I want to increase my RAM I'd have to upgrade to XP Pro as well...if it's a choice between more RAM and faster CPU I think I'm better off with the latter - right?

[paulreed]

I use the Q9650 and built my machine last fall just before the i7's came out. My machine certainly gets the job done, I can't max it out, but if I were you I would at least look into the i7 processor's......I do believe though the proper motherboard needs DDR3 so you might need to upgrade many parts for the i7.

hope this helps.
334 D-verbs with 7.4 on an Intel Q9650, Asus P5Q Deluxe, 4 gigs Corsair Dominator 1066 RAM, 2 - Asus 256MB fanless video cards, 3 - W.D. 320 gig SATA drives, 2 - 250 gig removable backup drive, I-Star 400-6Q case, Sony Lightscribe DVD, Noctua fans, Corsair HX 620 power supply, ADS Pyro Firewire, Scythe Ninja Heatsink, Kensington Expert Mouse

[Mike Borok]

paulreed - Thanks for the feedback, but still looking for the answer to my original question. As you point out, upgrade to i7 is not compatible with my current hardware, and I was not looking to do major surgery.

So, for the Core 2 Quads, I need to understand how much of a difference I might see between the models, and whether the cost differential is worth it.

[sw rec]

Upgrading to XP Pro won't have an effect on how much ram you can use. 32-bit platforms will address somewhere around 3.2 gigs of ram, period. The standard procedure seems to be to stick in 4 gigs, but it should work on XP whether it's the PRO version or not. Just don't go with 64-bit since it's not supported.

[Mike Borok]

Originally Posted by sw rec

Upgrading to XP Pro won't have an effect on how much ram you can use. 32-bit platforms will address somewhere around 3.2 gigs of ram, period. The standard procedure seems to be to stick in 4 gigs, but it should work on XP whether it's the PRO version or not. Just don't go with 64-bit since it's not supported.

Can anyone confirm this? I was told that XP Home can only address about 2G, so it doesn't pay to upgrade to 4G.

[ddwhitney]

I use XP home and I have 4G installed and 3.2G to 3.5G usable...

[TOM@METRO]

4GbB of ram will work just fine in XP Home. If you use the /3GB switch Pro Tools will be able to access about 2.7GB.

We use the 9550 CPU and have never maxed out, even on very large sessions with a lot of VIs.

[Mike Borok]

Originally Posted by TOM@METRO

We use the 9550 CPU and have never maxed out, even on very large sessions with a lot of VIs.

Thanks, this is exactly the kind of feedback I'm looking for...and I see that you're running PT8 (I'm on 7.4).

I'd love to hear similar feedback from other users!

Originally Posted by TOM@METRO

4GbB of ram will work just fine in XP Home. If you use the /3GB switch Pro Tools will be able to access about 2.7GB.

Can you tell me details about the "/3GB switch"? Is this a menu setting or something else? Thanks.

[ddwhitney]

No /3GB switch required for XP service pack 3.... also no special multi-core patches are required with service pack 3.

The Q9550 has 12MB cache and is easily OC'd to 3.0Ghz the Q9400 has only a 6MB cache which could make a big difference if your using alot of RTAS VI.

If you can afford more cache I'd get more..

[sunburst79]

A vote for the 9550 or 9650.