4.5Ghz Q9650 vs i7 2600k

D

DeadSkull

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
4,482
Got my Q9650 clocked to 4.5Ghz at fairly low volts (1.39375 bios).

I looked around for benchmarks and while clock for clock my Q9650 is no match for i7 2600k what is 4.5Ghz in 2600k speed, 3.8-3.9 Ghz? Is there really any point in upgrading to an i7 if the only thing I care about now is FPS in games and I doubt I will see much difference in upgrading. I still got a little room to push this chip on air and it should hit 4.6+ easy on water.

Thanks
 
Last edited:
The 2600K is a lot faster than the Core 2 series, but there is no point in upgrading your CPU until you get a new GPU. Even then you'll probably be fine with your nicely overclocked Q9650 and a single GPU for gaming. The cpu may bottleneck you a bit if you had a fancy new GPU, but you'll still see most of the benefits of the new GPU.
 
JohnleMVP said:
The 2600K is a lot faster than the Core 2 series, but there is no point in upgrading your CPU until you get a new GPU. Even then you'll probably be fine with your nicely overclocked Q9650 and a single GPU for gaming. The cpu may bottleneck you a bit if you had a fancy new GPU, but you'll still see most of the benefits of the new GPU.
Click to expand...

Even if 2600k is 25% faster then Q9650 clock for clock on average in games would a 3.7Ghz i7 2600k really bottleneck even the most high end cards out today? Maybe in synthetic benchies my Q9650 will hold me back but I doubt even 580 SLI would get bottlenecked in real world gaming.
 
Strictly for gaming, I wouldn't upgrade your processor yet unless you play games that are meaningfully CPU bound and there are but a few of those. Bang for buck for FPS is moving up from your 285. Nice build, btw ;)
 
Can you run a SuperPI (SuperPi Mod 1.5 XS) 1M and 32M test on your 4.5 ghz Q9650?
Then we can get a decent approximation.

I'm guessing that you should be at about 10.6 seconds for 1M.

Just tested really fast,
3.8 ghz= 9.86 1M
4.5 ghz=8.36 1M

Didn't test 3.6 ghz but probably would be around 10.4sec. Which is about what I saw others get with 4.5 ghz Q9650.
So about 30% boost in cpu limited stuff. Pretty much what I saw in some older games (like first level of Vietcong, and Morrowind with MGE+distant land mod).
 
Last edited:
Don't do it. You won't see hardly any difference if at all. Your processor will last you a few more years before games will become bottlenecked. You're far from it. Nothing you do will be that much faster with the I7 processor.
 
The only game where he will see a substantial benefit is that massive CPU hog called GTA4, as long as hes running a 6850+ or 470-500+ series card.

But yeah, if I didn't burn my 4 pin on my old motherboard out, I would still be gunning away on a 4 ghz QX9650.

It's definitely nice how a 3 year old CPU still runs brand new stuff very nicely. In comparison, when my Pentium 4 chip was 3 years old (in 2007), it was a pain to run anything new on there. That should show you how long Quads have been flexing their muscles. Especially when you overclock them.

A Q9650 paired with a P45 board and going at 4.5 ghz was definitely one of the best "longevity" purchases in recent history....Even 600e's at 1 ghz or 1.6 P4's @ 3.0 didn't keep their oomph for as long....
 
Don't do it if you are happy with your game performance.

When i got my GTX 480, I had a Q6600 runnign at 3.8GHz. It was very unsatisfied with my framerates in games like TF2, SC2, and Bad Company 2. I would drop down into the 40s and 50s in massive fights.

So I got an i7 930 and clocked it to 4.3GHz. Now I never get below 70-80fps in those games, even in the largest battles in full servers. I saw almost a 2x improvement in the lowest framerates in the games I play so it was more than worth it for me.

Your Core 2 quad is 4.5GHz so it's decently faster than my Core 2 Quad was at 3.8
 
Falkentyne said:
Can you run a SuperPI (SuperPi Mod 1.5 XS) 1M and 32M test on your 4.5 ghz Q9650?
Then we can get a decent approximation.

I'm guessing that you should be at about 10.6 seconds for 1M.

Just tested really fast,
3.8 ghz= 9.86 1M
4.5 ghz=8.36 1M

Didn't test 3.6 ghz but probably would be around 10.4sec. Which is about what I saw others get with 4.5 ghz Q9650.
So about 30% boost in cpu limited stuff. Pretty much what I saw in some older games (like first level of Vietcong, and Morrowind with MGE+distant land mod).
Click to expand...

Is that with Turbo Boost on? Because as you know with turbo in single threaded apps your 4.5 turns into a 4.8 and thats not a fair clock for clock comparison.

Yes, I get 10.500 sec at 4518Mhz on my Q9650.

exdriver said:
Strictly for gaming, I wouldn't upgrade your processor yet unless you play games that are meaningfully CPU bound and there are but a few of those. Bang for buck for FPS is moving up from your 285. Nice build, btw ;)
Click to expand...

Thanks, took me a while to put it together.

Falkentyne said:
The only game where he will see a substantial benefit is that massive CPU hog called GTA4, as long as hes running a 6850+ or 470-500+ series card.

But yeah, if I didn't burn my 4 pin on my old motherboard out, I would still be gunning away on a 4 ghz QX9650.

It's definitely nice how a 3 year old CPU still runs brand new stuff very nicely. In comparison, when my Pentium 4 chip was 3 years old (in 2007), it was a pain to run anything new on there. That should show you how long Quads have been flexing their muscles. Especially when you overclock them.

A Q9650 paired with a P45 board and going at 4.5 ghz was definitely one of the best "longevity" purchases in recent history....Even 600e's at 1 ghz or 1.6 P4's @ 3.0 didn't keep their oomph for as long....
Click to expand...

I am actually going to get a GTX 470 as RMA for GTX 285 really soon. Going to get interesting.
 
Last edited:
Oh, I'm using a 2600k with manual overclocking. Not using "turbo boost", just settting multipliers directly.

So those scores I posted were at 100x38 (3.8g) and 4.5g (100x45).

Ok so your score at 4.5 ghz about equal to my score at 3.6 ghz.
So that's about a 25% boost clock for clock if you extrapolate the mhz difference.

Very nice CPU you have. I'd definitely sit on it and see how Ivy Bridge performs, and then you can decide whether to jump on 1155/2011 for an Ivy Bridge upgrade, or even wait until the 2012 chips. Pair your cpu with a high end video card and you're good to go.
 
DeadSkull said:
Even if 2600k is 25% faster then Q9650 clock for clock on average in games would a 3.7Ghz i7 2600k really bottleneck even the most high end cards out today?
Click to expand...


Its not just which cpu and videocard, you also have to consider the software and resolution/settings. They may run equally on 98% of the games out but if the 2600K is faster in ONE or more games, there is a bottleneck. Maybe not one that you would consider significant, but that is what the word means.
 
Falkentyne said:
Oh, I'm using a 2600k with manual overclocking. Not using "turbo boost", just settting multipliers directly.

So those scores I posted were at 100x38 (3.8g) and 4.5g (100x45).

Ok so your score at 4.5 ghz about equal to my score at 3.6 ghz.
So that's about a 25% boost clock for clock if you extrapolate the mhz difference.

Very nice CPU you have. I'd definitely sit on it and see how Ivy Bridge performs, and then you can decide whether to jump on 1155/2011 for an Ivy Bridge upgrade, or even wait until the 2012 chips. Pair your cpu with a high end video card and you're good to go.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I actually got this chip from a fellow [H]ARD member :)
Personally I am waiting for a true 2x upgrade, at least 8 cores, and 50% improvement in clock for clock single threaded apps.
 
I have no benches to prove anything, but I'm going to have to say going from my Q9550@4GHz to my [email protected] (stock) I saw a huge improvement in games. Everything was just smoother in Just Cause 2, Aliens vs Predator, and StarCraft 2.
 
your a tad better off than me but we are about the same for overall system performance i would assume. and my [email protected] isnt really challenged by anything i currently play bfbc2,mafia 2 and lotro. i run sli and my cpu is slower than yours so im sure i see more cpu bottleneck than you right now but the fact is i just dont feel limited in the games i play so why would i upgrade, i really like the longevity of the 775 platform and i think the 2011 platform will have enough leaps ahead tech wise to really be worth my money
people with the latest and greatest will try to tell you they can tell the difference between 60 fps and 100 fps but i honestly cannot
 
fullvietFX said:
I have no benches to prove anything, but I'm going to have to say going from my Q9550@4GHz to my [email protected] (stock) I saw a huge improvement in games. Everything was just smoother in Just Cause 2, Aliens vs Predator, and StarCraft 2.
Click to expand...

We're not here to disagree with you, don't worry. 25% fps boost is pretty substantial. And those games you mentioned usually have framerates lower than the 60's on older hardware. So for games like that, a 25% processing boost is going to greatly enhance the game, and thus, your enjoyability. And in the case of SC2, your competitiveness :) .

Going from 45 to 60 FPS is a pretty hefty boost; games play like gravy at 60 FPS, while at 45 FPS, the performance can be quite annoying. Even more so if you're on a 60hz capped display.

So that's going to be far more noticable than going from, let's say, 75 fps to 100 fps (unless you're on a CRT with vsync on at 100hz refresh rate for instance, where getting the same fps as refresh rate matters).
And unless you're using a 120hz LCD, going from 100 fps to 125 fps isn't going to make any sort of difference at all.

a 4.5 ghz 9x50 Quad, though, is fast enough in everything, that is simply pays to sit on it and wait for Ivy Bridge/mature bioses.
 
Falkentyne said:
We're not here to disagree with you, don't worry. 25% fps boost is pretty substantial. And those games you mentioned usually have framerates lower than the 60's on older hardware. So for games like that, a 25% processing boost is going to greatly enhance the game, and thus, your enjoyability. And in the case of SC2, your competitiveness :) .

Going from 45 to 60 FPS is a pretty hefty boost; games play like gravy at 60 FPS, while at 45 FPS, the performance can be quite annoying. Even more so if you're on a 60hz capped display.

So that's going to be far more noticable than going from, let's say, 75 fps to 100 fps (unless you're on a CRT with vsync on at 100hz refresh rate for instance, where getting the same fps as refresh rate matters).
And unless you're using a 120hz LCD, going from 100 fps to 125 fps isn't going to make any sort of difference at all.

a 4.5 ghz 9x50 Quad, though, is fast enough in everything, that is simply pays to sit on it and wait for Ivy Bridge/mature bioses.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I wouldn't say that my Q9550 was "laggy" or anything but when the game is going at a constant 60fps (I always use V-Sync), with the Q9550 it would dip to 20fps sometimes and it was noticeable. It didn't ruin the experience but it's definitely noticeable or in your words, annoying.
 
RM_Bulldog said:
your a tad better off than me but we are about the same for overall system performance i would assume. and my [email protected] isnt really challenged by anything i currently play bfbc2,mafia 2 and lotro. i run sli and my cpu is slower than yours so im sure i see more cpu bottleneck than you right now but the fact is i just dont feel limited in the games i play so why would i upgrade, i really like the longevity of the 775 platform and i think the 2011 platform will have enough leaps ahead tech wise to really be worth my money
people with the latest and greatest will try to tell you they can tell the difference between 60 fps and 100 fps but i honestly cannot
Click to expand...

fullvietFX said:
Yeah, I wouldn't say that my Q9550 was "laggy" or anything but when the game is going at a constant 60fps (I always use V-Sync), with the Q9550 it would dip to 20fps sometimes and it was noticeable. It didn't ruin the experience but it's definitely noticeable or in your words, annoying.
Click to expand...

What was your memory clocked at with Q9550 at 4.0? You were probably not using the full potential of your FSB (not that it was anything big).
 
fullvietFX said:
I was running my memory 1:1, I had PC-8500. Still plenty of headroom.
Click to expand...

You weren't maxing it at all with memory at 942Mhz. With FSB at 480 ( 1920 Rated ) I found there was no difference inbetween my ram at 1152Mhz and 1200Mhz (2.4 and 2.5 memory straps) in memory benchmarks. Now going from 1:1 to 2.4:1 ( 960 to 1152 )was a big jump for me, even in GTA IV I saw something like 15-20% improvement in minimum fps, basically noticeable speed increases all around.
 
Last edited:
Personally I am waiting for a true 2x upgrade, at least 8 cores, and 50% improvement in clock for clock single threaded apps.
Click to expand...

Even in multithreaded apps on the desktop one thread is often the bottleneck and here we go...

Given that we now have real performance information on the Sandy Bridge processor microarchitecture I think you can safely conclude that we are not likely to see 50% improvement in clock for clock single threaded application performance in comparison to the Q9X50 series until the next processor microarchitecture. More cache won't do it, clock speeds are not likely to increase much, and adding more cores won't get it done either. You tell me how an extra 40W TDP and 4 cores is going to increase clockspeed or single thread performance in any meaningful manner on the same die size and microarchitecture. Maybe Intel can do this but I don't think so. As it matures over the course of Ivy Bridge there will be improvements, to be sure, but I'm not convinced that we will go from here to there quite that fast. Bridge, you say? ;)

In any case if that does happen, you will get most of the performance now, and be able to use it over the course of the development cycle. If you remember the discussions about buy Q9X50 or wait for i7 Nehalems a lot of the same discussions were out there. Whether or not you felt you should buy into the game at the Q stage or the i7 stage then is relevant now, I think, since in my humble opinion we are looking at largely the same pattern of development.

It certainly could be the case that as the next processor microarchitecture approaches we are at somewhere near the 50% improvement that you are looking for, perhaps even at that mark, and if that is your true mentality you would be better off purchasing then. You'll also have your 8 cores, but it's not likely for desktop and gaming usage that this will matter for some time to come. Dual core machines will be considered a software development target for some time to come and I think it unlikely that you will have a need for more than four cores within the given usable lifespan of the current processor microarchitecture. Countless reviews bear this out. At that time, however, you will be approaching the next processor microarchitecture update and the associated gains that usually come with such, and from what I read from Intel at this stage the improvements are again substantial.

This is of course opinion and speculation but that's the nature of this discussion anyway. Personally I shrugged when they shrunk the die to 32nm and I am thinking that I'll not be itching to upgrade when they shrink it to 22nm or add four cores. Especially at that price. When we get new processor microarchitecture again at 22nm, sometime much later, and there is again a reasonable price of entry, probably with 8 cores, I'll jump then, and likely software will be much more in line with actually using 8 cores. It will be interesting to see then if single thread performance is still king for the gaming and desktop segment. I am thinking that until then it will remain as it is now.

All of this is moot if you need more than four cores today. Some people do, and they are not on the kind of hardware you have anyway. After reading this you might wonder why I said I would not suggest you upgrade now. I suggest you don't because for you, if you are solely interested in gaming, I don't think that you will need more CPU before either the die shrink or the next processor microarchitecture. You will, and do, need more GPU.
 
exdriver, another excellent post, but the argument could be made from it that SandyBridge is a good platform to upgrade to, as it will be ages till we get a big jump in performance. Thing is Q96x50 system are getting old and probably vulnerable to breakdowns, especially with a lot of gaming. The motherboards on these systems have a finite life. The last thing anyone wants is downtime. This could be an argument along with yours to upgrade now, waiting and the IB is likely to be more expensive. especially with the way money is being printed:).
 
Well the point for upgrading is, when are you unhappy with the performance of your current system, and is a non-upgradeable component of your system holding you back?

If you find that your CPU is great but new games are making your video card sweat too much, then you upgrade your video card. If you can't stand the loading times, then you get a SSD. If you find that increasing resolution or enabling eye candy or FSAA doesn't make your framerates get any lower (or maybe 5 fps lower going to max details) but your FPS seems to be too low for smooth gameplay, then you know it's time to upgrade the CPU (or overclock and gun it high to get the most out of it). If you find your HDD spinning like mad (or even constant SDD seeks) and games taking years to load, then you get more RAM :)

So in the end, the user has to ask if he's happy with the current performance he's getting. And I think anyone using a 4.5 ghz quad is going to be happy, unless they're doing something that needs as much processing power as possible, and not gaming.
 
So in the end, the user has to ask if he's happy with the current performance he's getting.
Click to expand...

Yep. Only you can decide if you're happy.

exdriver, another excellent post, but the argument could be made from it that SandyBridge is a good platform to upgrade to, as it will be ages till we get a big jump in performance. Thing is Q96x50 system are getting old and probably vulnerable to breakdowns, especially with a lot of gaming. The motherboards on these systems have a finite life. The last thing anyone wants is downtime. This could be an argument along with yours to upgrade now, waiting and the IB is likely to be more expensive. especially with the way money is being printed.
Click to expand...

Thanks. SB is making the early adoption of 980x look good. Problem is you couldn't have known that, SB could have blown the 980x out of the water but it didn't. It's on par. Those people are still on the level and will be until late this year... and beyond. I don't want to spend $1k on a processor for what I do, so SB it is. IB will be more expensive especially if you want to play the Extreme Edition game, but if you do I would be willing to argue that the absolute bang for buck is in the early adoption of EE processors.

You can still get parts for 775, for now, and downtime should be minimal. I don't think I'd upgrade on that basis. Just for me, personally, I'd rather spend $3xx on new architecture than $1k on EE over roughly the same time period. If I had more money EE would be the way I would go, as soon as it comes out.
 
Last edited:
the absolute bang for buck is in the early adoption of EE processors
Click to expand...

You have GOT to be joking.

To add some perspective, I went from a stock clocked Q9550 to a 4.5GHz 2500K and the difference is literally night and day. For example, where I was getting 15-30 FPS in MechWarrior Living Legends (Crysis Wars mod, heavily CPU limited unless you are running very high resolutions and settings), I am now getting 40 minimum, usually 60+.

Now a big part of my reason for upgrading was the inability of my old machine to overclock whatsoever so it's harder to say what the difference would have been like going from a 4.5GHz Q9550 to a 4.5GHz 2500K, but my guess is it would have been noticeable as SB is 20-30% faster clock for clock which would translate to a 10-20 FPS difference -- definitely perceptible to most gamers.
 
Last edited:
Blahman said:
You have GOT to be joking.

To add some perspective, I went from a stock clocked Q9550 to a 4.5GHz 2500K and the difference is literally night and day. For example, where I was getting 15-30 FPS in MechWarrior Living Legends (Crysis Wars mod, heavily CPU limited unless you are running very high resolutions and settings), I am now getting 40 minimum, usually 60+.

Now a big part of my reason for upgrading was the inability of my old machine to overclock whatsoever so it's harder to say what the difference would have been like going from a 4.5GHz Q9550 to a 4.5GHz 2500K, but my guess is it would have been noticeable as SB is 20-30% faster clock for clock which would translate to a 10-20 FPS difference -- definitely perceptible to most gamers.
Click to expand...

Not to mention just day-to-day tasks feel snappier and smoother on the SB. I think it has something to do with the memory controller.
 
exdriver said:
edited for content
Click to expand...

lol...i7 965 is 1366 and released in 2008. November 17, 2008.

But even if you were referring to the Core 2 Extreme QX9650, that was November 11, 2007. Then it goes back to QX6 with Kentsfield.
 
Its amazing how many discussion threads there are on this. Given the price that high-end Core 2 Quads go for on ebay (more than the cost of a 2500k new), by time you sell just about any used 775 board, and the ddr2.....making a complete swap to a new 2500k setup with a midrange 1155 board might cost you what? Fifty bucks?

Granted, I could never guess everyone's situation, but that does not seem like an amount of money worth debating or worrying about...even for an enthusiast that brings in minimum wage.
 
Hey, I tried. :)

You'd have to go back to the QX6700 in Q4 2006, and you could still run this and be on the edge today. You'd have gotten 4 good years out of it and if you made it to the end of this year, almost five. This year would likely be a painful wait.
 
exdriver said:
Hey, I tried. :)

You'd have to go back to the QX6700 in Q4 2006, and you could still run this and be on the edge today. You'd have gotten 4 good years out of it and if you made it to the end of this year, almost five. This year would likely be a painful wait.
Click to expand...

Thing about it is with the SB unlocked CPU's any new EE processors will be a bit limp. I think Intel will not make more unlocked processors on new generations for that reason, So that would be another + for upgrading to SB now instead of waiting.
 
Falkentyne said:
Well the point for upgrading is, when are you unhappy with the performance of your current system, and is a non-upgradeable component of your system holding you back?

If you find that your CPU is great but new games are making your video card sweat too much, then you upgrade your video card. If you can't stand the loading times, then you get a SSD. If you find that increasing resolution or enabling eye candy or FSAA doesn't make your framerates get any lower (or maybe 5 fps lower going to max details) but your FPS seems to be too low for smooth gameplay, then you know it's time to upgrade the CPU (or overclock and gun it high to get the most out of it). If you find your HDD spinning like mad (or even constant SDD seeks) and games taking years to load, then you get more RAM :)

So in the end, the user has to ask if he's happy with the current performance he's getting. And I think anyone using a 4.5 ghz quad is going to be happy, unless they're doing something that needs as much processing power as possible, and not gaming.
Click to expand...

Back when I had 285 SLI and a different Q9650 @ 4.3 I was getting similar results to i7 + HD 5970 in Crysis. Each 285 was oc'ed about 20% but the main point is my chip didn't hold my 285 SLI back at all. Basically I'm satisfied with my rigs performance ATM and since I don't game much because of college there is no reason for me to upgrade till the summer.

fullvietFX said:
Not to mention just day-to-day tasks feel snappier and smoother on the SB. I think it has something to do with the memory controller.
Click to expand...

Definitely, compared to the usual memory latency of 60ns for average lga775 system, Sandy Bridge is somewhere 35-40ns on average. That as well as way higher memory read, write speeds will definitely be noticeable in system performance.
 
I'm considering the same jump, waiting for friggin SB motherboards to hit Newegg again.

Currently Q9550 @ 4ghz, I think a 2600k overclocked to ~4.5 would be a nice upgrade in general. Granted I don't do much of anything these with my computer lol :D
 
crawlgsx said:
I'm considering the same jump, waiting for friggin SB motherboards to hit Newegg again.

Currently Q9550 @ 4ghz, I think a 2600k overclocked to ~4.5 would be a nice upgrade in general. Granted I don't do much of anything these with my computer lol :D
Click to expand...

I made the jump from a 4GHz 9650 to a 5GHz 2600K. The difference is noticeable.

Although, my ASUS board is less than stable, but I do enjoy the feature set it offers.
Miss my old rock solid setup though.
 
ShadeZeRO said:
I made the jump from a 4GHz 9650 to a 5GHz 2600K. The difference is noticeable.

Although, my ASUS board is less than stable, but I do enjoy the feature set it offers.
Miss my old rock solid setup though.
Click to expand...

Is the stability problem related to the high overclock?
 
I think Intel will not make more unlocked processors on new generations for that reason, So that would be another + for upgrading to SB now instead of waiting.
Click to expand...

Who knows what Intel will utimately do? They have started a trend with this, though, and I bet we haven't seen the last of it.

I'm considering the same jump, waiting for friggin SB motherboards to hit Newegg again.
Click to expand...

If you're going to make the jump now don't be too hasty. The recall and delay benefits you in that Z68 should be coming out before too long and you probably should wait the few weeks on that chipset.

You could wait on Bulldozer, for that matter, but I got tired of AMD promising the world a long time ago...
 
I'm positive in that BC2 using a Q9650 at 4.27ghz will bottleneck your performance when compared to a i7 920 or 2600k which is even better... for example I tested many video cards(see sig) in my rig, and when it came to test out the gtx570 and 2gb ati5970 I was hoping for a big fps increase over my ati5870 I was currently using, but due to being CPU limited I didn't experience any gains at all, even with the ati5970 I was getting the exact same fps as before if not less.

In studying BC2 benchmark reviews online almost all test systems are using oc'd i7 920-980's. It clearly shows a huge fps increase when comparing the ati5870 to the ati5970, should be on average 33fps faster...

battlefield20bc20220168.png


I even thought there could be something wrong with the 5970 and swapped it out at Fry's for another one and did a fresh install of win7, but I was still getting crappy results, I also installed in my friends machine similar to mine but a Q9550 and he was getting the same poor results as me.

The gtx570 should also perform better then the 5870, but it didn't because I was CPU limited, here's and example...
I've got a couple of friends that play BC2 with killer systems and had them meet me in some full BC2 servers so we could do some testing and compare fps while I had the 570 installed. He was running a gtx570 on a i7 920 @ 4ghz and he was getting 25 fps more then me with the exact same graphic settings and standing in the same spot on the map.

So after testing out all 6 different video cards I ended up sticking with the 5870 since it's the best match for my Q9650.

Don't get me wrong, Q9650 @ 4ghz and higher is still a great cpu, but when you get into the any video cards faster then a 5870 your gonna be getting held back and your not gonna see the video cards full potential.
 
And that's why it was time to move on from the Q series. ;) It wasn't going to do me any good to upgrade to a 570 ... or two :D
 
It's hard to move onto new stuff when it's been recalled or haven't released yet. I'm waiting for bulldozer to be release. I don't know if I can hold off til 2011. I'm feeling the bottleneck with my q9550 and eyefinity resolutions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top