Does it make sense to replace a socket-775 e8600 with a cheap ($50) used XEON?

If not XEON (54-- range, usually 60 or 50), then quad (but those tend to be as expensive as more modern processors) or an extreme edition.

My mobo is known to support 771=>775 processors, and I'm simply going by the presumption that 5470 is the strongest available CPU for s775 (a bit stronger than 5450 or 60).

How much performance gain would I be looking at? My e8600 is an A/E0, lapped.

(Other specs: 4x2GB DDR2 A-DATA VITESTA, undetermined GFX card yet but probably GTX 960 or comparable, SATA2 7200 drive but going for SSD soon. My work is mostly done in very advanced but poorly optimized industry-specific text editors with attached memories and often large files. For gaming, when I have the time, it's mostly 2011–2012 stuff like Crusader Kings 2, Starcraft 2, Shogun 2, Dirt series, Grid series etc., but I'm not precluding newer titles on principle.)

Why not the XEON 5482, can be had for $50 on ebay and has a 1600Mhz fsb compared to the 5470 as 1333. The 2 cores may help with overall computing when multitasking, single thread performance is about the same.

If you are only looking to upgrade and not a new build I could see it being a viable option if you are just trying to make it last a little while longer. a 5482 and especially an SSD would make the machine feel new. A current gen 1150 or 1151 would be leaps and bounds better however.

SuperTuner12010 said:

Why not the XEON 5482, can be had for $50 on ebay and has a 1600Mhz fsb compared to the 6470 as 1333. The 2 cores may help with overall computing when multitasking, single thread performance is about the same.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I wasn't aware anything with a higher number than 5472 existed on 775.

If you are only looking to upgrade and not a new build I could see it being a viable option if you are just trying to make it last a little while longer. a 5482 and especially an SSD would make the machine feel new. A current gen 1150 or 1151 would be leaps and bounds better however.

Click to expand...

Held back by a Windows OEM licence and some really large urgent expenses. Just don't want to pass up on a small expense that could make a large enough impact on performance to notice.

Incidentally, since quads also are getting cheaper anyway, would the 5482 be much faster than the best of them?

From what I recall the 5482 is <5% overall better than the 5470 at a lower clock mind you, anyone one of them are all going to be very close, an oc in any of them would probably match the best of them. Really just get whatever you can afford, don't skimp on the ssd though. If you have never had an ssd in the past you will be blown away.

Get a Yorkie!

SuperTuner12010 said:

From what I recall the 5482 is <5% overall better than the 5470 at a lower clock mind you, anyone one of them are all going to be very close,

Click to expand...

Thanks, that's useful to know. A 5482 is probably going to be hard to come by because of less population size, wealth and tech etc. in our companies and so on, which may also affect the price if something so scarce does show up (and is the only item of its type being auctioned at any given time etc.).

How does a QX9700 compare, though? I'm asking precisely because it's a bit more expensive but within the same price range.

an oc in any of them would probably match the best of them.

Click to expand...

Is their OC going to be better than what I could squeeze out of the Wolf, though? My temps aren't great, with 45C system temp happening quite often with both case wings removed (PC is on at least 16/24/7).

I would also prefer not to lose anything like precious 5 fps in those games where C2D beats C2Q...

Really just get whatever you can afford,

Click to expand...

What about getting a strong air cooler for Wolfie instead? (Though I could get both.)

don't skimp on the ssd though.

Click to expand...

Not intending to! Might even get a SATA3 controller for it. Definitely getting >500 on both read and write, preferably NIB, not under 480GB.

If you have never had an ssd in the past you will be blown away.

Click to expand...

Great! HDD is currently my primary bottleneck. My Windows Experience index is (before any OC): CPU 6.7; memory 6.8; gfx and games: 7.3 each, HDD 5.9 (and this is SATA 2 7200 RPM). Consequently, replacing the HDD would bump me to 6.7 overall, and the 6.7/6.8 stat is before any OC, so getting it up to 7.3 should be quite doable, and from there OC'ing the GPU and everything else closer to 7.9.

I'm sure I'm going to love faster reads and writes at work, where most of what I do is done in very advanced office-sort-of software that's poorly optimized (and uses solutions similar to project-specific swapfiles).

RJARRRPCGP said:

Get a Yorkie!

Click to expand...

That sounds like a clear recommendation if I've ever seen any!

This said, given the nature of my work and leisure (oldish games, usually strategies, RPGs and car racers), won't I be losing some critical performance margins in exchange for some gain I won't be putting to use?

Note: I sometimes have 2 instances of MS Office 2013 plus one of aforesaid underoptimized PC-clogging Visual-Basic-runtime-using wasteful power hog of an industry-specific document-editing suite (a.k.a. Trados Studio 2015, though I'm not a heavy localizer, just a translator with large and complicated files sometimes plus translation memories storing bilingual tabulation of more such files to stay consistent with previous translations), with a bunch of Chrome windows and lighter applications in the background, sometimes running a game too and alt-tabbing back-and-forth. No graphical rendering whatsoever or data backups or anything else IT people do for a living. I would certainly appreciate more fluidity in all of this (feeling a little choked when working with larger files right now), though like I said, it would be bad to lose the kind of 5 fps in single-core games that can mean the difference between playable and not so.

I hadn't noticed you were still only using sata2, that would be a bottleneck for an ssd. And buying a controller would just add more money that would be better off just upgrading.

As far as the cpu's do go in gaming they are all relatively close in single thread performance, I wouldn't see you losing any fps there. Your gpu will make up that difference. The 4 core cpu is mostly going to help you with your work, as you multitask. Games should be unaffected.

As far as oc, a good air cooler is always recommended when oc'ing. For light overclocking a Hyper 212+ is usually the go to guy being really affordable for the performance it gives. Overclocking can give you slight fps in games if the cpu is a bottleneck with the current games you are playing.

As far as the windows score goes that really isn't a good rating of system performance, much better benchmarks out there. Going from a HDD to a SSD is much more than points in a windows score or benchmark anyhow. It's really hard to explain until you use one. After you use one at it's full potential you will wonder why you hadn't switched years ago.

With what you are looking at, a new cpu, cooler, sata 3 controller, you are at the end of the day just prolonging old tech.

What is your budget if I might ask? And what is the availability of parts to your location? Buying from Newegg viable? Or do you have other options? I ask these because by the time you buy sata 3 controller, cpu, cooler for oc, you will be nearly half way to something current gen. For instancehttp://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.2142054shopping around can get you cheaper prices as well.

Then you get current gen hardware, no extras, and performance would be unrivaled, a good cooler would could come a t a later date and you can oc the 4690k like no ones business.

One other option would be to search the classifieds, as people upgrade they sell their old hardware still in perfect condition but at a fraction of the price usually.

All things to keep in mind.

Aren't Xeons multiplier locked?

Sorry for necro. I hadn't bought that Xeon then but am thinking about it again now. One question: Are the 'performance' X Xeons, which are slightly faster but have a noticeably higher 120W TDP still preferable, or should I get a slightly (usually several percent between corresponding models) slower 'mainstream' Xeon E with 80TDP for cooling/OC reasons? Current cooler: Thermalright Ultra 120 (I'm probably going to buy one of those more expensive higher-CFM fans that can still run at a decent noise level).

What motherboard are you on? Does it allow overclocking?

Might be fine with just sourcing a Core 2 Quad and overclocking it a bit.

They're getting cheaper these days.

Don't know what pricing is like in your part of the world, but here in the States they're getting quite cheap. I picked up a Q8400 (2.66GHz stock) a few weeks back for $14 USD and threw it in an off-the-shelf office PC I had here for an upgrade from the dual-core Pentium that came with it. I had a similar one that I overclocked to 3.6GHz with no problems. A Q9400 or Q9450 can be had for $15-25 a lot of the time, around here. Two years ago a similar CPU would have cost $40-60.

I had an E8400 some years ago clocked at 3.6GHz and upgraded to a Q6600, even at 3.2GHz the Q6600 was faster in the applications and games I ran.

Tech Tweaker said:

What motherboard are you on? Does it allow overclocking?

Might be fine with just sourcing a Core 2 Quad and overclocking it a bit.

They're getting cheaper these days.

Don't know what pricing is like in your part of the world, but here in the States they're getting quite cheap. I picked up a Q8400 (2.66GHz stock) a few weeks back for $14 USD and threw it in an off-the-shelf office PC I had here for an upgrade from the dual-core Pentium that came with it. I had a similar one that I overclocked to 3.6GHz with no problems. A Q9400 or Q9450 can be had for $15-25 a lot of the time, around here. Two years ago a similar CPU would have cost $40-60.

I had an E8400 some years ago clocked at 3.6GHz and upgraded to a Q6600, even at 3.2GHz the Q6600 was faster in the applications and games I ran.

Click to expand...

Ha! No such luck here. With such low prices, I'd probably be buying them just for the fun of playing around with them (or, likely, I'd have been on a new PC for a long time now). This said, I can get an E5472 or X5450 for about $25 shipped, or an X5460 for about twice that, which is also the cost of Q6600. Q9550 starts from about $70 (just like 9450). Q9650 nets a $80–90. Pretty steep for a largely 'lateral' upgrade, or even a slight downgrade in single core/2-core applications (I run one program 99% of the time, excluding background stuff like antivir, updates etc.), especially considering my E8600 is a proven piece that overclocks well and the quad would be a new draw in silicon lottery. This too makes me a bit gun shy about the whole thing.

Higher quads like Q9750 don't really even pop up here. I'm a bit worried about lower quads because of how they are slower than E8600 in single-core applications. On the other hand, higher quads are slower than Xeons but more expensive.

I've looked for X5470 Xeons but can't find any.

Mobo is Asus P5Q-E. It's P45, and it's also been tested for pretty much all of those Xeons.

I'd normally be inclined to get the X5460 as the best bang for the buck, with 120W TDP compared to E5472's 5472 I'm probably going to be able to get a much better overclock on the E5472 with this cooler. If the TDP really means that much. I've read the X's actually draw less power typically than the E's do. The Thermalright Ultra should be able to handle a 120W processor, but it wouldn't have great temps, probably already close to maxing out the spec even without OC if the CPU really dissipated like twice the heat my Core2Duo already does.

On the other hand, CPU Boss claims the E8600 consumes 120W as opposed to the X5460's 97.5W (typical). The problem: its charts also show the Xeon is basically on par with the Core2Duo, which makes no sense upgrading.

I have a Xeon x3360 that I use on a Rampage Formula, and it works great! it does 4ghz no problem and has nice even, cool temps

I traded my Q9550 here to a member who had a board that wouldn't see the 3360.. I think it runs nicer than the 9550 did..

I just looked on ebay, and they run about 55 beans.. Seems fair I suppose..

Edit:

I think it took my old e8600 4600, or 4800mhz to roughly have the same type of horsepower as a stock Q6600 using my own testing.. But it was still pretty quick for a dualcore

Update: X5450 (just like 5440) costs about $24 shipped. X5470 — $66. Does it look like a good idea to go a bit beyond the point of diminished returns and pay the $40 to max out?

Up to you , it's the same CPU just with one extra multi. Personally I'd save the $40 since you'll most likely be temp restricted before you run the chip to it's max FSB.

Johan45 said:

Up to you , it's the same CPU just with one extra multi. Personally I'd save the $40 since you'll most likely be temp restricted before you run the chip to it's max FSB.

Click to expand...

120W after all.

Thanks.

I'm still thinking about it, but my options have multiplied at the last minute after checking out some newer info.

As short as I can make it:

1. Stick with the 775 ring, put a Xeon and an SSD in it. Regarding SSD: a) 512GB to serve as storage drive with M.2 as sys/app drive in the future; or b) 256GB to cut costs.

Pros: No need to buy new Windows, new RAM or new CPU cooler. Low cost in abstract numbers. Huge relative bump from SSD, both for work and games (and sanity vs Windows/apps load/read/write times). Will possibly last me at least till Kaby/Cannon from Intel and Zen from AMD for better prices when eventually replacing the whole platform. Might be enough for my work and the games I play.

Cons: Much newer CPUs can be purchased for the same price. Investor syndrome and curiosity will be keeping me on the old platform for longer, just like I still haven't had enough of my Wolfie yet. Delaying the inevitable etc.

Silver lining: A SATA SSD can serve as storage after retiring as sys/app drive. Probably better than buying an HDD for storage, and not that much more expensive. Having 256 or 512 GB fast storage will allow me to focus on speed and get a 256 or even 128 GB superfast sys/app M.2 drive after upgrading the platform. According to some benchmarks also the Xeon could be worth the money and performing on par in multicore with G4440.

2. Cheap Skylake.

G4400 on the cheapest non-noname mobo that will run it. Either way, a single stick of good 16GB RAM because of low prices. And Windows. No huge coolers or K processors, just putting the money in higher non-K processors to upgrade without OC-ing. Eventually replace the mobo and then add a superfast M.2 sys/app drive. Need new Windows (current one is OEM).

Pros: Cheaper. Flexible to upgrade opportunistically according to whatever good deals pop up. Skipping SATA SSDs altogether, straight to 2280 M.2 or better.

Cons: Still somewhat on the expensive side for an upgrade. No SSD initially. Lots of placeholder parts. Not much OC without K, Z or proper cooling.

Silver lining: Money will be lost on placeholder parts but 1) they can still sell for some, 2) price higher-end mobos and CPUs will drop by more than the $50 cost of a cheap mobo or $60-70 for a cheap Pentium. Even cheap-*** G4440 is a beast in single core, which is good for old, underoptimized DX9 games, of which I play a lot. Can still get a huge cooler some time later in expectation of a better CPU and OC the heck out of the low-TDP Pentium, even through FSB.

3. Like #2 but not so cheap. More a new box than mobo+cpu+RAM replacement. More upfront investment of whatever kind, be it M.2 mobo + M.2 drive and/or nicer cooler and Z170 chipset for OC fun and faster K readiness.

Pros: Faster/immediate access to stuff, less hassle and bother. Huge bump in work applications and games.

Cons: Cost — still doable, but large and disrupting my budget. Power not really needed right now, only later when it has lost much of its monetary value, so having a hard time justifying it.

Silver lining: Costly but otherwise more comfortable than all the other options.

4. Similar to 2–3 but Haswell.

Pros: Lower total price tag. Better OC opportunities.

Cons: Older teach, dead-end-ish. No M.2 except on mobos as expensive as Z170. DDR3. Old CPU socket (+ cooler for it).

Silver lining: Plenty of second-hand top-performing CPUs to choose from, which will be getting cheaper. Small performance loss to Skylake on stock, and better OC. DDR3 isn't that much worse than DDR4 and can be purchased ahead of expected price rebound (16GB at start, another 16 later). Also, another cDDR3 can be purchased before its prices rebound. Same thoughts re: SATA SSD / no SSD as above.


***

Background:

Work: Translator. Huge underoptimized text editors, sometimes huge files, on-the-fly databases (large translation memories for constant checking against), one million open browser windows at any time, heavy use of load-intense MS Office crap (it's ridiculous how 12 pages with 1000 tracked changes make more lag than a newest game). Probably need an upgrade. Both CPU and SSD.

Games: Still living in DX9 era. Would mind a modern game but got a lot of older ones to catch up with. It's coinflippy right now: some new games work extra well & fast, some old ones chafe. Honestly could use an upgrade. It would make sense to get a better platform with the 280X GPU I already have.

I think I will buy a couple of those E5450 just in case. For now I am at 6340 points in Passmark 8 with a $40 xeon E5450. More to it here:
http://www.overclockers.com/forums/...d-E5450-Xeon-to-3-94GHz?p=7940559#post7940559