killz86 :
how much slower is the phenom 9500 to the c2d e6420?
killz86 :
i mean honestly i keep getting mixed up reviews about what i have and the phenom 9500. i was going to put a phenom ii in later but i don't know now that i think about it. i have tried to look on google to compare it but i am unable to find it
It really depends on the program you are running and how many threads it can use.
In truly multi-threaded apps, the slower quad core 9500 will take the lead over the faster dual core E6420.
In general though, a single Phenom I core is about 15% slower than a single Core 2 core when both are clocked at the same speed.
If you disable the L3 cache to correct the TLB bug, it will be even slower compared to the Core 2 arch.
Even with a large advantage in multi-threaded apps, the 9500 will not necessarily be much faster once you factor in overclocking.
First generation Phenom CPU's are very pore overclockers.
You have to be very lucky to break the 3Ghz barrier and still be stable.
Your current Intel CPU, however, is an extremely capable overclocker.
As you have already seen, it is easily capable of 3.2Ghz even when running under stock voltage.
With a capable motherboard, and a little work, you should be able to fairly safely push it into the 3.6Ghz range.
The pure speed difference alone will make up most of the performance differences between the two CPU's.
This changes somewhat when you consider upgrading to a Phenom II CPU.
The second generation Phenom CPU has largely taken up the gap between the older Phenom CPU's and Intel's Core 2 arch.
Now it roughly matches Intel's Core 2 Quad offerings in both clock for clock performance and overclocking.
So, if you did upgrade the 9500 for a PII, you would be in pretty good shape.
With the above information in mind, though, why not just get an Intel Core 2 Quad when the need for speed arises?
In the end it will cost you less, and perform about the same, as any price advantage from the Phenom II will be overtaken by the cost of the new platform.
killz86 :
...now i believe my high vcore was because my ram cant be o/ced to 800 from 667 because it is basic ram. because at 1333 i only need 1.2000v...
...Also what ram should i go with i say G.skill 4gb ddr2 1066 for $39 on a forum i was looking at is that worth it?
also is there a huge difference between the xfx 4850 512mb and xfx 4870?
I was also thinking of picking up a Evga 8800GTS and do the step-up to a GTX 260 or GTX 275?
Do not worry to much about such a low Vcore or the droop.
As
Intel's Specs say it is safe to run it at up to 1.5v, with proper cooling, you are still way in the green.
This does not mean, however, that you should pore on the voltage.
It is always better to run your CPU at the lowest stable voltage for your overclock.
Also, the speed of the RAM has no bearing on the required voltage of the CPU.
They are completly seperated here.
There is no performance difference between DDR2 800 and 1066.
The only real advantage you will have with DDR2 1066 would be when you are overclocking past a 450Mhz FSB.
That being said, if there is only a few $ difference between a DDR2 800 4Gb kit and a DDR2 1066 4Gb kit, by all means get the faster one.
There will roughly be a 20% performance difference between a 4850 and a 4870.
If you can fit it into your budget, defiantly get a 4870 with a 1Gb version being preferred.
I would not get an EVGA 8800GTS and expect to be able to step it up to a GTX 260.
Not sure exactly how their step up system works but I would assume it would not be possible to do it as you think.
Also, the direct step up from an 8800GTS 512Mb would be a 9800GTX, which performs about the same as the 4850.