Budget 0-20k Need to replace current C2D setup - Budget - under 10k

[sibot]

Current Specs -
Intel Core2Duo E6600 2.4GHz - 4MB L2 Cache
Asus P5B-MX WiFi-AP
4GB DDR2 RAM
Nvidi 9800GT

What I use my computer for - Surfing, listening to music, watching movies (HD), gaming occassionally (Diablo 3, Call of Duty 4)

Budget - I'd like to spend as little as possible. I have some 6GB of DDR2 RAM with me which I can utilise with the new processor.

Options in mind

1. Buy an AMD Phenom 560 and use it with ECS Web Site (already have the mobo). Expense incurred by going for this option would be 5k. I have 6GB DDR2 RAM with me, that I don't mind using right now, but if tomorrow I want to upgrade to another motherboard, would the Phenom support DDR3 RAM?
2. Intel G620 Setup with a new motherboard and 4GB DDR3 RAM - expense would be around 10k for this setup.

How does the Phenom II 560 compare to the Intel G620?

It'd be great if people could suggest me some other configurations or which would be a better option out of the two?

Cheers,
Sibot

 

[Jakob]

sibot Here are few options for you-
Intel G620-3.3k OR Intel i3 2120-6.5k
Gigabyte B75M D3H-4.5k OR Gigabyte H61M D2H-3.3k
Corsair Value Ram 2X2GB DDR3-1k
Segate 500GB HDD-4k[Don't count this if you already have the HDD]
Any Circle Case with SMPS-1.5k[OR You can get better PSU if you want to add GPU-Corsair CX430V2-2.2k]
It won't get cheaper than this.You won't be able to use DDR2 Ram with this config.Here's a comparison with Phenom II X2 560-http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/187?vs=406,The G620 performs better than it and consumes lot less power.
Hope this helps.

 

[amitkher]

sibot, G620 is not much better than your current processor. So this is not a good utilization of 10k. It will also be a downgrade in total memory from 6GB to 4GB.


If you want to spend 10k, and improve gaming performance, simply get a new graphics card. If gaming is a lower priority, get an SSD, which will improve game loading time, browsing and general responsiveness, boot time. Whenever you upgrade the rig, you can carry over the SSD so it is not a wastage in that sense. G620 will have to thrown away (or sold for a pittance) when you fully upgrade so keep that wastage in mind.

 

[ALPHA17]

sibot, G620 is not much better than your current processor. So this is not a good utilization of 10k. It will also be a downgrade in total memory from 6GB to 4GB.

Whenever you upgrade the rig, you can carry over the SSD so it is not a wastage in that sense. G620 will have to thrown away (or sold for a pittance) when you fully upgrade so keep that wastage in mind.

Can you prove how the Intel Pentium G620 is a step-down from the Core 2Duo E6600?

Here is a benchmark run between the two [Core 2Duo E6750 used as a reference as the E6600 was struck off the charts] --> AnandTech - Bench - CPU.

The scores tell a strikingly different tale, frame-rates are at par, power consumed is straight up halved, single-core performance is incrementally up (though this I think is because of small L2 cache for the G620].

It all depends, SSD's are rather fickle devices, a SATA III based SSD hooked up onto a SATA II connector in OP's case will be a waster. TRIM and SRT are necessary to the complete SSD performance gain. Also their lives are on average ~5 -->7 years (can be lower if OP keeps extensive write operations). If you keep any component of a PC for long, you will end up selling it for a low price (that is how value depreciates). You can see it happening between the Core 2Duo series and the current Core i3's / Intel Pentium G's (which if we take back to the Core 2Duo days would have sold at a premium of ~35000/- per-processor). Technology propels itself to higher achievements and amortizes past Goliath's.

 

[amitkher]

Can you prove how the Intel Pentium G620 is a step-down from the Core 2Duo E6600?

Here is a benchmark run between the two [Core 2Duo E6750 used as a reference as the E6600 was struck off the charts] --> AnandTech - Bench - CPU.
.

I looked at the same benches before posting. And I didn't say G620 is a step down, I said it is not "much better". You yourself see the benchmarks - gaming is not the primary objective of this PC, and even in framerates the difference is only about 20%. In some other benchmarks, G620 performs worse than the 4+ year old E6600. Most uses mentioned are not CPU bound at all.


Do you like spending 10k on improving some CPU benchmarks , that too by maximum around 20%, barely perceivable? Even though most uses of the system are not CPU bound at all? Get less RAM after spending 10k?

 

[ALPHA17]

I looked at the same benches before posting. And I didn't say G620 is a step down, I said it is not "much better". You yourself see the benchmarks - gaming is not the primary objective of this PC, and even in framerates the difference is only about 20%. In some other benchmarks, G620 performs worse than the 4+ year old E6600. Most uses mentioned are not CPU bound at all.

The advantages offered whether benchmarked OR not are much better, the processor is sucking a lot less power for the same work that the Core 2Duo is doing.

Can you tell me which system process is completely CPU-bound these days? You will never find any day-to-day process that is bound to a single component in the build our diverse formats and devices have made sure of that.

I am not chasing benchmarks, I am pointing towards the efficiency of the system. Just because it is not perceivable at all times, it does not mean it is a waste. The SSD will not work at peak efficiency on a ~4 year old system that has an ageing chipset and interconnect system [FSB vis-á-vis Ring based interconnect], the introduction of new instruction sets over time and most importantly iGP on die. You can say what you want but what is bad, I do not get, OP doesn't want to game; no need to add that graphics card iGP is all he needs for the occasional 1080p RIPz; he buys a decent H67 / H77 / B75 chipset based setup and he is good to go for the next ~3 years he can drop in a more powerful Ivy-Bridge chip (when they are dirt-cheap, till then Intel will have glass processors for all we know). Touche.

Just getting a system for it to be better than the setup it is relieving is all well and good but that need not be the case everytime, Intel has proven it with their 'tick-tock' development and release cycles, sometimes the improvements have to be passive, the same process done for a [SUP]1[/SUP]/[SUB]4[/SUB] of the power sipped is a process just as well done.

OP himself has mentioned that if he forgoes a step-up to DDR III, he is not going to loose anything but currently RAM prices are = dirt (relatively speaking). Whether we like it OR not Intel is bringing in DDR4 to the fore with the Haswell release [Q1 -->Q2 2013] and that will completely upend the current situation where OP can get a ~10000/- quid build with 8GB of RAM; so the looser in the long run is the guy who failed to adopt.

 

[DarkAngel]

You can sell the DDR 2 sticks for Rs. 700-800 each giving you a ~2.1k-2.4k. 2GB DDR2 Dynet stick costs ~1.25k whereas transcend costs 1.4k

You can use that money to buy 8GB(2*4GB) DDR3 Corsair value RAM ~ 2.6k

So dont let RAM be a deciding factor when going for a setup. If you get a good setup using DDR3 then go for it.

 

[amitkher]

The advantages offered whether benchmarked OR not are much better, the processor is sucking a lot less power for the same work that the Core 2Duo is doing.

Power requirements are not mentioned.

Can you tell me which system process is completely CPU-bound these days?

None (almost). And that is my point, thanks for proving it. 20% maximum improvement, if we assume 10% tasks are CPU bound. That makes overall improvement 2% after spending 10k. Most of the bottlenecks are at the storage layer, but you don't want to fix them.

I am no chasing benchmarks, I am pointing towards the efficiency of the system. Just because it is not perceivable at all times, it does not mean it is a waste. The SSD will not work at peak efficiency on a ~4 year old system that has an ageing chipset and interconnect system [FSB vis-á-vis Ring based interconnect], the introduction of new instruction sets over time and most importantly iGP on die.

In spite of all this, "non-peak efficiency", SSD seek time will remain ten-thousandths of an HDD's. Data transfer rate will remain more than twice for read and around twice for writes , compared to HDD's Random data read & write will remain over 5 times the HDD's. Boot time will halve. Responsiveness improves. So this gives multiple TIMES improvements in real bottleneck areas; and you emphasize the 2% CPU improvement with less RAM in non-bottleneck areas? I can't even begin to understand this. I have never had to emphasize the difference between percent and times.


Performance penalty of unused iGP will bring SSD data rates to lower than HDD's data rate? Wow, any references?

You can say what you want but what is bad, I do not get, OP doesn't want to game; no need to add that graphics card iGP is all he needs for the occasional 1080p RIPz; he buys a decent H67 / H77 / B75 chipset based setup and he is good to go for the next ~3 years he can drop in a more powerful Ivy-Bridge chip (when they are dirt-cheap, till then Intel will have glass processors for all we know). Touche.

But he is ALREADY good for ~3 years, if 2% improvement with less RAM is called "good for ~3 years". Without spending 10k.

9800GT is iGP?

Just getting a system for it to be better than the setup it is relieving is all well and good but that need not be the case everytime

This is the most important point you have made. Spending 10k need not give any improvement. My thought process was that spending money should give improvement. I made the elementary mistake, sorry.

, Intel has proven it with their 'tick-tock' development and release cycles, sometimes the improvements have to be passive, the same process done for a [SUP]1[/SUP]/[SUB]4[/SUB] of the power sipped is a process just as well done.

IF power consumption is a criterion.

Whether we like it OR not Intel is bringing in DDR4 to the fore with the Haswell release [Q1 -->Q2 2013]

Exactly, thanks for proving my point again. Buying DDR 3 at this stage, to throw it away in 2 years is awesome. But an SSD, merely lasts 5-7 years? I thought 5 and 7, both are greater numbers than 2.


In fact, if the current bottleneck is removed by a simple SSD, OP can directly upgrade to full Haswell in 2 years, carrying over the SSD.

 

[ALPHA17]

Power requirements are not mentioned.

In spite of all this, "non-peak efficiency", SSD seek time will remain ten-thousandths of an HDD's. Data transfer rate will remain more than twice for read and around twice for writes , compared to HDD's Random data read & write will remain over 5 times the HDD's. Boot time will halve. Responsiveness improves. So this gives multiple TIMES improvements in real bottleneck areas; and you emphasize the 2% CPU improvement with less RAM in non-bottleneck areas? I can't even begin to understand this. I have never had to emphasize the difference between percent and times.

9800GT is iGP?

This is the most important point you have made. Spending 10k need not give any improvement. My thought process was that spending money should give improvement. I made the elementary mistake, sorry.

In fact, if the current bottleneck is removed by a simple SSD, OP can directly upgrade to full Haswell in 2 years, carrying over the SSD.

Did he mention, he wants to buy an SSD?

The latency rates will definitely be better on the SSD, no denying that, random access operations will be snappier. That is what SSD's were developed for, to eradicate the hard-drives 'latency' based performance issues. The stable read-write performance of hard-drives though can catch up with SSD's; only if it is a constant process and the information is properly de-fragmented (which is not the day-to-day case). But an SSD costs ~8000/- quid for a decent mature firmware SATA III based product. Which will not perform at its peak until OP goes the whole hog and upgrades his RIG.

Yes RAM is cheap and I will stand by my point, I am not reducing the 9800GT to the point of iGP but OP himself mentioned he is not going to game crazy (at tops Diablo III and the 9800GT is fine for that).

A simple SSD that burns an ~8000/- quid hole in the pocket, needs to be paired with technology to unleash its full potential and no, an SSD may OR may not last for ~5 -->7 years it is all dependent on how you use it, the more you fill it, erase it and modify it the weaker its retention capabilities are. And if OP wants to enjoy the advantage across all his applications they all need to be installed on the same, for that he needs capacity and that is going for a premium these days.

 

[sibot]

boy thanks for the light you guys have shed on the topic, but to be honest it's just become more confusing if it's better to keep my current setup and be restricted to 4GB of RAM

OR move to G620 with Gigabyte GA-B75M-D3H Motherboard | Motherboard | Flipkart.com (USB 3.0, SATA 3, etc.) and maybe upgrade to a SSD after a few months.

Highly unlikely I'll be upgrading to DDR4 when it comes out, but I might be upgrading from my current 9800GT to a better GPU later on. Because what I do on my computer is mostly web surfing, listening to music, watching movies and the occassional gaming. I frankly don't really feel the need as such to upgrade, but since i've been using this setup for quite sometime, I could use better performance. Maybe two years down the line when the new generation of processors are released, I could probably upgrade to i7. There's a fat chance I'd be needing chugging processing power in the future. Neither my work nor my interests demand so.

Power consumption as such is not an issue, but hey if I can cut corners and save some, then why not?

I'm really in the favour of going for the G620 as I could always use the motherboard later on if I plan to upgrade to i3/i5/i7. Plus whatever my current setups would fetch today, I'd get even lesser tomorrow or a few months down the line.

- - - Updated - - -

Any idea how much would the following configurations fetch me -

Config 1 -

1. Intel Core2Duo E6600 - 2.4Ghz - 1033Mhz FSB - 4MB Cache
2. Asus P5B-MX Wifi AP Motherboard
3. 4GB DDR2 RAM - Transcend or Corsair
4. 500GB IDE HDD
5. XFX Nvidia 9500GT GPU

Config 2 -

1. AMD Athlon 64 x2 5000+ 2.6Ghz
2. ECS GF8200A Motherboard with onboard Nvidia 8200 with the ability to hybrid SLi, 8 channel audio, 6 USB ports, HDMI, etc.
3. 3GB DDR2 RAM - Transcend or Corsair
4. 250GB IDE HDD
5. Cabinet + SMPS (Local)

And - a Samsung 15" LCD - not widescreen.

 

[ALPHA17]

OR move to G620 with Gigabyte GA-B75M-D3H Motherboard | Motherboard | Flipkart.com (USB 3.0, SATA 3, etc.) and maybe upgrade to a SSD after a few months.

Highly unlikely I'll be upgrading to DDR4 when it comes out, but I might be upgrading from my current 9800GT to a better GPU later on. Because what I do on my computer is mostly web surfing, listening to music, watching movies and the occassional gaming. I frankly don't really feel the need as such to upgrade, but since i've been using this setup for quite sometime, I could use better performance. Maybe two years down the line when the new generation of processors are released, I could probably upgrade to i7. There's a fat chance I'd be needing chugging processing power in the future. Neither my work nor my interests demand so.

Power consumption as such is not an issue, but hey if I can cut corners and save some, then why not?

I'm really in the favour of going for the G620 as I could always use the motherboard later on if I plan to upgrade to i3/i5/i7. Plus whatever my current setups would fetch today, I'd get even lesser tomorrow or a few months down the line.

I strongly recommend that you ditch your legacy setup and get an entry-level desktop --

Intel Core i3 2120 OR Intel Pentium G620 ~6800/- OR 3500/-
GIGABYTE-B75M-D3H ~4500/-
Corsair Vengeance 4GB x1 1600MHz ~1700/- [add another 4GB module later]
[graphics card and hard-drive same-same old]
Corsair CX v2430W ~2700/- [from flipkart.com]
NZXT Gamma OR Cooler Master eLite 430 ~2400/- OR 2700/- [these will come handy for future hard-drive upgrades and longer graphics card (possible)]

Where are you going to buy this RIG from?

Later add an SSD, as amit has pointed out; that upgrade will complete pummel any other upgrade but I must caution that instead of going for smaller capacity it is wiser to get a ~120GB SSD so that you can install multiple-applications (that you commonly use) along with a couple of games so that these also get the benefit of the speedup offered by an SSD.

Hope this help, Cheerio!