Upgrade time again

Cams · Post by **Cams** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 8:07 am

My main rig is now painfully slow so I'm back on SPCR again looking to my old trusty SPCR colleagues for some advice. My main rig is an AMD 3500+ as is my sig file. Details and the build were documented at the time and I had fun sharing the experience on SPCR.

It's now long in the tooth and I'm now also in a different job which means I no longer have hours and hours to spend researching stuff on the net. So I turn to you my friends!

Questions:

DDR2 or DDR3? Given that it might be another two years or possibly longer before the next upgrade, I tend to think that DDR3 would be most suitable.

Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad? Or indeed something else?

At this point in time, money is an object. Max budget is Â£400.

My computing needs are modest. No gaming, some photo editing with CS3, loads of Lightroom work with large catalogues. I do less audio and video editing than I used to do, so a mid-range CPU would probably see me through. Still using XP and have no plans to switch to Vista. I have three SATA drives and an IDE drive - do mobos still come with IDE? I guess I could ditch the IDE now and switch to a bigger SATA. Ideally I'd like a drobo and have only one drive in the PC. That's another story though.

My budget should include at least 2 gigs of RAM, preferably 4.

So, any pointers?

thanks,
Cams

Cams · Post by **Cams** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:19 am

Any thoughts on the Asus P5QC? It takes DDR2 or DDR3 and is Â£90. All other DDR3 boards I can find are more expensive.

Or is there really little point in my selecting DDR3 for my modest needs, bearing in mind my budget?

protellect · Post by **protellect** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:34 am

I'd say given your budget, and modest needs, go for a fast, cheap dual core processor.

If you like intel, E7XXX or E5XXX series chips would be something to look at. Even the 8 series might be something to look at, since you don't state any need for dedicated graphics, and usually thats the other expensive part.

If you like AMD, the e4850 chip is very popular, though you could look at the new phenom dual-core chip as well [AMD Athlon 64 X2 7750].
In the US its priced very well, and I think is quite fast for what you get, but isn't as energy efficient as the e4850.

Go ahead and get the cheapest 4GB memory kit you can get. Keep in mind XP will only see 3-3.5gb of the memory. Stick with DDR2, most performance advantages of DDR3 aren't truly realized yet, and it's significantly more expensive.

If you need motherboard recommendations, you might read reviews of them at online vendors. Newegg.com in particular is good to read, but sadly they don't ship internationally, so you will have to order from another online store.

Hope that gets you started.

Post by **CA_Steve** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 10:05 am

Cheapest route that meets your needs is a board with integrated graphics.

AMD = 4850e + 780g mobo with DDR2.

An Intel CPU solution might be e5200 + 9300 NVidia mobo with DDR2. The 5200 overclocks like a champ at stock voltages.

DDR3 prices are still very high compared to DDR2. Get 2 sticks of 2GB at maybe DDR800 stock speed with decent timing and it will meet future needs. While you can address <4GB with 32-bit XP, photoshop will use what you give it.

Upgrade paths....look and see if your versions of CS3 and Lightroom will utilize more than 2 cores. If so, the lower end quad cores might give you more oomph for those tasks. If not, don't bother.

Most mobo's still provide a PATA socket for 2 IDE devices.

Cams · Post by **Cams** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 11:38 am

Thanks for the helpful replies, folks.

protellect wrote:Even the 8 series might be something to look at, since you don't state any need for dedicated graphics, and usually that's the other expensive part.

Yeah, I don't need integrated graphics. I have a passively cooled Nvidia 8600GT as I needed dual-link to drive my Dell 30.

protellect wrote:Go ahead and get the cheapest 4GB memory kit you can get. Keep in mind XP will only see 3-3.5gb of the memory. Stick with DDR2, most performance advantages of DDR3 aren't truly realized yet, and it's significantly more expensive.

Thanks, that was what I wanted to know, whether it's worth going for DDR3 right now or DDR2.

CA_Steve wrote:Upgrade paths....look and see if your versions of CS3 and Lightroom will utilize more than 2 cores. If so, the lower end quad cores might give you more oomph for those tasks. If not, don't bother.

Great advice. I did just that and there seems to be mixed opinion about whether Lightroom really benefits from quad cores. This post seems well documented and shows that it does, so perhaps that would be the best choice for me right now. What quad core lies in the sweet spot of price and performance?

Post by **CA_Steve** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 12:59 pm

it might be a little more complex...he was running Vista 64...does Lightroom support quad core under 32-bit XP?

That said, here's a six month old review from the Tech Reportthat looks at dual/quad core performance for a variety of tasks including imaging. Prices have dropped considerably and new models added since then. But, it'll give you a feel for things.

Here's another from X-bit Labs.

Cams · Post by **Cams** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 1:01 pm

CA_Steve wrote:it might be a little more complex...he was running Vista 64...does Lightroom support quad core under 32-bit XP?

Aha, well spotted that man. I hadn't noticed that. Back to the drawing board then.

Cams · Post by **Cams** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 1:16 pm

So what are the differences between the 4xxx, 5xxx, 7xxx and 8xxx series on the Intel CPUs? For example, on my vendor of choice's site, the E7300 Wolfdale 2.66GHz (1066FSB) - Retail is the same price as the E4600 Allendale 2.40GHz (800FSB) - Retail

Can anyone enlighten me?

Post by **CA_Steve** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 1:41 pm

Here's another post on quad/dual core performance at Extreme Tech.

Intel model numbers....here's a wiki

Very short answer: e4xxx and e6xxx 65nm were the first gen core 2 duo's. The diff between the 45nm Wolfdale 5, 7, and 8 are cache size.

Ok, my time as personal shopper is up for the day

Enjoy your research!

Cams · Post by **Cams** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:55 pm

Thanks Steve. It's looking like the following is going to be my choice:

Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 LGA775 'Wolfdale' 3.16GHz (1333FSB) - Retail - Â£160.99
Asus P5Q Pro Intel P45 (Socket 775) PCI-Express DDR2 Motherboard - Â£105.79
OCZ 4GB (2x2GB) PC2-6400C5 Dual Channel Vista Gold Series DDR2 - Â£39.09

Takes me to just over Â£300 with shipping. Is that speed of RAM a good match for the CPU?

Post by **CA_Steve** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 6:18 pm

with the fsb of 1333MHz and (I think) 9.5 stepping for the e8500....

3.16GHz / 9.5 = 333MHz

So, you are probably better off getting low latency 667 memory and running 2:1 for FSB to Memory bus. But, that's a nit.

Cams · Post by **Cams** » Sun Dec 28, 2008 3:36 am

Would this qualify as low latency?

OCZ 4GB (2x2GB) PC2-5400C5 Dual Channel Vista Upgrade Gold Series DDR2 (OCZ2VU6674GK)

667MHz RAM Speed, CAS 5-5-5-15 Timings, 1.8-2.0v VDIMM, Lifetime Warranty with OCZ.

It's actually Â£10 more expensive for that than for the PC6400 RAM.

And what about overclocking? Would the PC6400 be a better choice for that?

Faster_Madman · Post by **Faster_Madman** » Sun Dec 28, 2008 4:32 am

Cams wrote:Would this qualify as low latency?

OCZ 4GB (2x2GB) PC2-5400C5 Dual Channel Vista Upgrade Gold Series DDR2 (OCZ2VU6674GK)

667MHz RAM Speed, CAS 5-5-5-15 Timings, 1.8-2.0v VDIMM, Lifetime Warranty with OCZ.

No, 5-5-5-15 is slow timings and furthermore the clock frequency of those RAM are on the low side of what is available in the budget segment atm.

I would recommend a higher clock and the same timings for RAM for the compatibility issues with different chipsets.

Post by **CA_Steve** » Sun Dec 28, 2008 7:41 am

4-4-4-12-1T at 1.8V is the goal. The competitive spot in the market may be at 800MHz rather than 667MHz (based on this look at newegg.com). Some mfgrs raise the default voltage to get the specified timings. All said and done, fine tuning memory speed and timing is at best a 5% performance tweak. So, find something reasonable that's on your mobo's recommended list, and move on.