Quad core upgrade?

[malbec]

So, I built a new machine for myself two years or so ago with a motherboard that supported a 1066 MHz front side bus and either a Core 2 Duo or a Core 2 Quad. I went with the Core 2 Duo (E6600 ... 2.4 MHz 1066 MHz FSB) thinking I will pop the chip out and put in a quad core at a later date when the chips got cheaper.

Newegg has one of their "double shocker" deals for a ... Core 2 Quad Q6600 ... which I think is the fastest quad core chip (2.4 MHz) that supports a 1066 MHz FSB ... for $170 including shipping.

So ... is the extra two cores worth the $170, or do I pocket the change and wait another couple years to build a new server with an i7? Transcoding is less of an issue with the HD100 and HD200s leaving comskip which I don't record that many things simultaneously. That said, my Sage server doubles as my office PC with recording being done at the same time someone is watching at the same time someone is surfing the web, doing e-mail, possibly editing a video, etc.

Opinions welcomed. Thanks.

[MitchSchaft]

I would do it. But I went from a single core to a quad core. Huge difference.

[Djc208]

With that many uses you probably could benefit from the extra two cores to prevent background Sage/comskip processes interfering with your normal use.

Of course with the i5 just around the corner I'd vote to save the money, build a new i5 (or i7 if you really need the power or like having bragging rights) for your work machine and relegate the C2D to a Sage server.

[kevine]

Originally Posted by malbec

possibly editing a video

That is the task that pushed me to suggest the quad. Editing a video is no run of the mill task. That can require some pretty intense CPU time.

Recording does not take that much processing power but you want it uninteruppted. You could run comskip on off hours with the E6600.

Lastly, do not limit your search to 1066 FSB unless you know your motherboard is not capable of handling the 1333 FSB. I performed a similar upgrade less than 2 weeks ago. E6600 to Q9550 (1333 FSB). My motherboard was natively not able to take that chip but with a BIOS update it was. I am not sure where you got the price of $170 from but I am showing Newegg at $199 for the Q6600. The Q9550 is $20 more and it has 12 MB cache.

I have not done anything quad worthy with it yet but I plan to. Good luck.

[david1234]

Is a dual to quad upgrade a simple drop in? I thought I'd heard (but can't find anything about it now) that Windows wouldn't automatically see the extra 2 cores unless you did a re-install of the OS.

[MitchSchaft]

Of course it will, I did one last week. Your bios might need an update, but other than that, dropping it in is all it takes.

[kevine]

Second that. Did mine last week 2 weeks ago too.

[mayamaniac]

Originally Posted by malbec

So ... is the extra two cores worth the $170, or do I pocket the change and wait another couple years to build a new server with an i7?

A $170 upgrade for a couple of years is totally worthwhile in my book. But you know a quad core upgrade will last beyond a couple of years before the next upgrade.

So the general consensus seems to be "do it"!

[btrcp2000]

If you have a microcenter near you, I just picked up a q9550 w/ 12mb l2 for $169. I am building a new server to use WHS and comskip h.264.

[kevine]

Originally Posted by btrcp2000

If you have a microcenter near you, I just picked up a q9550 w/ 12mb l2 for $169. I am building a new server to use WHS and comskip h.264.

That is a sweet deal! I wish I knew about this 3 weeks ago. I paid $216 at zipzoomfly.com.

[evilpenguin]

I love my Quad-Core server, in fact, I just upgraded from a Q6600 (old version, way too hot) to a new, much cooler running, Q9400. I don't comskip h.264 recordings, but I do a fair amount of video encoding and having a quad-core cuts my encoding times in half.

[malbec]

Hey, thanks guys for all of the help. Truth of the matter is the deal was done at midnight that night and I procrastenated too long. However, when the steel strikes hot again..

However, you are getting me to pause a bit, so here comes another question.

My motherboard (ASUS Commando) only supports a 1033MHz FSB. I can not find a firmware upgrade, etc. to support 1333 MHz. I suppose I could make an attempt to overclock things, but honestly it is a bit beyond my skills at the moment and I hesitate to throw that kind of coin at tsomething htat might work if I can possibly figure it out. So...

Can you just drop a 1333 MHz FSB chip into a 1033MHz motherboard and not have any problems other than running the chips below optimal? When I researched this in the past by calling the motherboard manufacturer, etc. they said no. But, I always struggle with answers from such sources given the conflict of interest.

Thanks again for the help and insights.

[kevine]

Originally Posted by malbec

Hey, thanks guys for all of the help. Truth of the matter is the deal was done at midnight that night and I procrastenated too long. However, when the steel strikes hot again..

However, you are getting me to pause a bit, so here comes another question.

My motherboard (ASUS Commando) only supports a 1033MHz FSB. I can not find a firmware upgrade, etc. to support 1333 MHz. I suppose I could make an attempt to overclock things, but honestly it is a bit beyond my skills at the moment and I hesitate to throw that kind of coin at tsomething htat might work if I can possibly figure it out. So...

Can you just drop a 1333 MHz FSB chip into a 1033MHz motherboard and not have any problems other than running the chips below optimal? When I researched this in the past by calling the motherboard manufacturer, etc. they said no. But, I always struggle with answers from such sources given the conflict of interest.

Thanks again for the help and insights.

One stop shopping, mate. Here is your BIOS update. Now there is no excuse not to get that quad.

[jerryt]

Originally Posted by david1234

Is a dual to quad upgrade a simple drop in? I thought I'd heard (but can't find anything about it now) that Windows wouldn't automatically see the extra 2 cores unless you did a re-install of the OS.

That is what happened to me. Dropping the quad core into an existing OS install and it would only see dual. Took me forever to figure out I needed to reinstall the OS.

[kevine]

Originally Posted by jerryt

That is what happened to me. Dropping the quad core into an existing OS install and it would only see dual. Took me forever to figure out I needed to reinstall the OS.

Wow. Glad that did not happen to me but I had to reinstall WHS anyway from trial version.

[MitchSchaft]

That's definately not the norm.

[TechJunkie]

Originally Posted by jerryt

That is what happened to me. Dropping the quad core into an existing OS install and it would only see dual. Took me forever to figure out I needed to reinstall the OS.

In the past WindowsXP would not recognize a multi core processor if it was installed with a single core. Vista is able to change the DLLs required for multi core processors without a reinstall.
I do not know what happens when you go from 2 to 4 cores with XP. It is my understanding that the DLLs are for single or multi core processors.

[TechJunkie]

Originally Posted by btrcp2000

If you have a microcenter near you, I just picked up a q9550 w/ 12mb l2 for $169. I am building a new server to use WHS and comskip h.264.

12mb? WHS will only see 4mb since it is based on Windows 2003 Business edition x86. I have 8mb and waiting for version 2 of whs which will be based Windows7 x64. Then all the memory will be used.

[MitchSchaft]

I went from a single core to a quad core in XP with no troubles. You could reboot with the install disk and do a repair instead of reinstalling windows. It should install the new HAL that way.(or whatever it's called, I forgot)

[kevine]

Originally Posted by TechJunkie

12mb? WHS will only see 4mb since it is based on Windows 2003 Business edition x86. I have 8mb and waiting for version 2 of whs which will be based Windows7 x64. Then all the memory will be used.

I believe this to be incorrect. CPUID reports 6144 x 2 L2 cache. If Windows saw less, it would report less. No?