Future of Socket 775?
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
Future of Socket 775?
Anyone know if Intel will continue to release Socket 775 processors, or have they pretty much stopped at what is out there.
Basically, I'm trying to figure out my upgrade options - I've got an e6600, and wouldn't mind something faster for photo editing, now that I'm using 12 MPixel raw files, and Lightroom is a bit of a pig.
I like the e7500/7600, since they overclock well, and high-multipliers will downramp to the (dumb) fixed 6x multiplier when it's idle.
A Core 2 Quad might be better, but they're slower, and most software doesn't use Quad Core at the moment, from what I read.
Just curious...
-Dan
Basically, I'm trying to figure out my upgrade options - I've got an e6600, and wouldn't mind something faster for photo editing, now that I'm using 12 MPixel raw files, and Lightroom is a bit of a pig.
I like the e7500/7600, since they overclock well, and high-multipliers will downramp to the (dumb) fixed 6x multiplier when it's idle.
A Core 2 Quad might be better, but they're slower, and most software doesn't use Quad Core at the moment, from what I read.
Just curious...
-Dan
-
- SPCR Reviewer
- Posts: 1115
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 9:07 pm
- Location: Vancouver
Replacing an E6600 with E7xxx is IMHO a DOWNgrade, at least in terms of performance. Yeah, E7xxx will clock up to 3,8-3,9 GHz but you have more cache in E6600 and I'm positive you can push 90% of E6600 CPUs up to 3,6 GHz. E7xxx will draw less power, sure, but performancewise and pricewise they're hard to recommend. And, from what I see on auctions, thhy still fetch high prices, if you want a 2nd hand CPU. New ones are almost as expensive as E8xxx series, making them a poor choice UNLESS you get a 7xxx cheaply.
If you want to stick to 775 (still good idea as there are plenty of powerful CPUs out there) you'd better go with a E8400 - massive cache and easily achievable 4 GHz, and low power still. Need more cores? E9xxx or E9x50. Good OC, low power, prices are dropping. E8xxx might be lagging as they have tiny cache and are hard to OC due to low multipliers.
If you want to stick to 775 (still good idea as there are plenty of powerful CPUs out there) you'd better go with a E8400 - massive cache and easily achievable 4 GHz, and low power still. Need more cores? E9xxx or E9x50. Good OC, low power, prices are dropping. E8xxx might be lagging as they have tiny cache and are hard to OC due to low multipliers.
-
- -- Vendor --
- Posts: 372
- Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:30 am
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
Re: Future of Socket 775?
A Quad core is the only upgrade you can make and most photo editing software can use multi thread so a Quad core will make a difference.plympton wrote:Anyone know if Intel will continue to release Socket 775 processors, or have they pretty much stopped at what is out there.
A Core 2 Quad might be better, but they're slower, and most software doesn't use Quad Core at the moment, from what I read.
Just curious...
-Dan
I guess they will not release new LGA-775 processors but the Quad cores will still be good for some years.
Curious opinions!
Dual Core options:
Interesting thoughts about the e6600 vs. e7xxx. My e6600 overclocks to 3.33 most of the time, but I've got it at 3.1 for stability. Under Windows it might do better, but Hackintosh is a bit more dodgy, less tweakable.
I was supposing that a e7500 could go do 4.4 (400 fsb * 11 mult), and would save a ton of power on idle (400x6 = 2.4 GHz). My e6600 clocks down to the same, but would be 1 GHz slower. And the cache is only 1 MB less - 1 MB > 1 GHz?
Quad Core Options:
They're getting cheaper, but still not cheap (better value vs. dual-core, though - $50 gets you 2 more cores new). There's conflicting info on whether LR will use multiple cores (or efficiently). I read some blogs that tested it (http://macperformanceguide.com/Optimizi ... troom.html), and it appears that this was a design choice by Adobe - keep CPU cycles free for interface uses.
Either way, it sounds like 4-cores will help, so maybe that's the way to go. It's unfortunate that all the Quads have such pathetic multipliers, or worse yet they're low-locked down to 6x... WTH is up with that?
Also, I'm on a Mac(Hack), so Windows speedups won't help. I also changed from an ATI card (3850) -> nVidia card (9600gso), upgrade from Leopard -> Snow Leopard, and upgrade from a D40 (6 MP) -> GF1 (12 MP) camera all at the same time.
Therefore, who knows what aspect made it feel slower?
Thanks for the optimization tip site - I was mainly feeling the pain from "rendering previews". Ugh. Now I've got that set to do at import, and will just grab a cup of coffee and KVM away while it renders.
Thanks!
-Dan
Interesting thoughts about the e6600 vs. e7xxx. My e6600 overclocks to 3.33 most of the time, but I've got it at 3.1 for stability. Under Windows it might do better, but Hackintosh is a bit more dodgy, less tweakable.
I was supposing that a e7500 could go do 4.4 (400 fsb * 11 mult), and would save a ton of power on idle (400x6 = 2.4 GHz). My e6600 clocks down to the same, but would be 1 GHz slower. And the cache is only 1 MB less - 1 MB > 1 GHz?
Quad Core Options:
They're getting cheaper, but still not cheap (better value vs. dual-core, though - $50 gets you 2 more cores new). There's conflicting info on whether LR will use multiple cores (or efficiently). I read some blogs that tested it (http://macperformanceguide.com/Optimizi ... troom.html), and it appears that this was a design choice by Adobe - keep CPU cycles free for interface uses.
Either way, it sounds like 4-cores will help, so maybe that's the way to go. It's unfortunate that all the Quads have such pathetic multipliers, or worse yet they're low-locked down to 6x... WTH is up with that?
Also, I'm on a Mac(Hack), so Windows speedups won't help. I also changed from an ATI card (3850) -> nVidia card (9600gso), upgrade from Leopard -> Snow Leopard, and upgrade from a D40 (6 MP) -> GF1 (12 MP) camera all at the same time.
Therefore, who knows what aspect made it feel slower?
Thanks for the optimization tip site - I was mainly feeling the pain from "rendering previews". Ugh. Now I've got that set to do at import, and will just grab a cup of coffee and KVM away while it renders.
Thanks!
-Dan
-
- -- Vendor --
- Posts: 372
- Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:30 am
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
Re: Curious opinions!
Yes the quad core have higher FSB 333 and I have a Q8400s that is 8x333 so 2.66Ghz and will work easy at 400x8 = 3.2GHz but I used at 2Ghz 333x6 for energy efficiency only 0.925V and 24Wplympton wrote: Either way, it sounds like 4-cores will help, so maybe that's the way to go. It's unfortunate that all the Quads have such pathetic multipliers, or worse yet they're low-locked down to 6x... WTH is up with that?
Default multiplier is 8 and it will go down to 6 on idle and I guess all dual core and quad core from Intel can not go less than 6x.
My board uses a G31 and the multiplier on this CPU can be set manually from 6 to 8 with 0.5 increment.
-
- *Lifetime Patron*
- Posts: 1809
- Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:45 am
- Location: At Home
I use Lightroom 1.4 for processing my 5D files (12Mp), and have a Q6600 with 4GB of ram (32-bit windows though). LR uses all the cores very well, and I actually got rid of my overclock to 3.0 back to the stock 2.4 since I was always I/O limited, even with a raptor for O/S, velociraptor for LR cache and windows page file, and 1TB RE3 for photos. Perhaps the 3.0 OC would help a bit with the super transitory UI stuff, but I couldn't see peaks up to 100% with windows task manager graphing set to the fastest refresh.
I'd go quad, and also worry about I/O a lot, perhaps more than the CPU after some point in CPU ability.
I'd go quad, and also worry about I/O a lot, perhaps more than the CPU after some point in CPU ability.
Picked up a 9550
.. popped it in tonight - it DOES use less (or equal) power to the e6600, at their mild-overclocks & stock voltages. Crazy. Easy overclock to 3.5 GHz @ 1.21 volts (stock), cooled with a Mini Ninja & 5v 80mm fan. Not much difference from idle (150 watts) -> prime95 torture (185 watts)
Now I just need to shoot a card full of RAW's to see how much faster it is.
-Dan
Now I just need to shoot a card full of RAW's to see how much faster it is.
-Dan
-
- Friend of SPCR
- Posts: 2887
- Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:21 pm
- Location: New York City zzzz
- Contact:
It will not most likely drop at all. Check out all the threads about amd 939 chips, all thought that the 185 chip would drop, still hasnt! Look at p4 sockets, people still waiting for the 3.4 extreme chips to fall! Nothing falls it seems when it is both wanted by the consumer and is end of life, and, intel wants to destroy that socket and your wallet.sNNooPY wrote:look at my specs in the sig.
My plan is to keep this baby running for a looooong looong time.
I've maxed out on RAM (8GB DD2@800MHz), the next thing will be E6600 -> Q9650 which the max for my board.
I'm just waiting for the price to drop significantly and I'm in no hurry.
From what I see on auctions of 2nd hand gear for 775 - only E2xxx and E4xxx CPUs drop prices, but I guess they've already hit a bottom and if they go even lower they'd be cheaper than low models of AM2 X2 CPUs (hi models of which still fetch good money). Older E6300 and E6400 CPUs sell, strange as it may seem, for more than E4xxx (same CPU basically). E6550, E6600 and bigger sell for more or less the same as low clocked E7xxx. Q6600 are priced exactly like E8400. Plenty of new E5200 and E3200 chips but ppl looking for cheap 775 rigs still choose older E2xxx and E4xxx, tho price differences are v small here.
What's not dropping? 939 X2 chips, higher AM2 X2 chips, higher P4 chips, all kinds of Extreme Intels.
What's not dropping? 939 X2 chips, higher AM2 X2 chips, higher P4 chips, all kinds of Extreme Intels.
-
- Posts: 271
- Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:35 pm
- Location: CA
I picked up an E7500 recently. Great CPU. I'm not sure about the claims that E7xxx is markedly inferior to E6xxxx and E8xxxx. I mean how much diff does the bigger cache really make in average desktop apps or gaming?
I believe this is about the "sweet spot" for maxing out this architecture, and then it's time to move on to something newer in a few years.
I picked up the Gigabyte DS3 board in 2007 so by 2011 or 2012 I'll have gotten more years out of a board than most people.
I believe this is about the "sweet spot" for maxing out this architecture, and then it's time to move on to something newer in a few years.
I picked up the Gigabyte DS3 board in 2007 so by 2011 or 2012 I'll have gotten more years out of a board than most people.
the last time i looked, photoshop was 64-bit capable, but only on the pc platform.
which is a bit of a shame, because there are performance advantages to using the latest ps on a 64-bit o.s... 10-12%(??), from what i read.
nevertheless, that overclocked q9550 will rock your world, even on a hackintosh!
which is a bit of a shame, because there are performance advantages to using the latest ps on a 64-bit o.s... 10-12%(??), from what i read.
nevertheless, that overclocked q9550 will rock your world, even on a hackintosh!
-
- Posts: 271
- Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:35 pm
- Location: CA
Found a madshrimps article comparing E7400 to E8600.
The cache does make a difference, but to me the "bang for buck" to buy the more expensive E8600 just isn't there. YMMV.
http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&articID=908
The cache does make a difference, but to me the "bang for buck" to buy the more expensive E8600 just isn't there. YMMV.
http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&articID=908
At least in the US the e3300 is currently on sale for $60flapane wrote:AFAIK e3300 is due to be released in jan2010, and there is an e8700 hangin' around (maybe it's only a rumor).
There aren't any other informations about skt775...
I'd like new 65w and lower price Q9xxx's.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... &Tpk=e3300