virtualbox.org

I have been looking to update my PC, and also need to do some virtual Active Directory Domain Controller setups for school and work.

My PC currently has 4GB DDR2 800MHz with Core 2 Duo E8400 overclocked to 3.8GHz (stock voltage air cooled).

I plan on running Server 2003 plus three Vista virtual machines simultaneously. I was going to upgrade my machine to 8GB, max supported by my motherboard, using Vista Business 64-bit. This is a cheap upgrade, less than $50. But I was wondering if a Quad core Q9550 @ 3.83GHz would fare better with this setup than my Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.8GHz? I can get the combo of RAM + CPU for $250, but would really prefer to not spend if it won't make a lick of difference. Other than VirtualBox, I intend on using it for basic desktop apps (Office, basic photo manipulation, and gaming on GTX 260 Core 216).

Thanks.

htwingnut wrote:I plan on running Server 2003 plus three Vista virtual machines simultaneously.

Then I'd definitely go Quadcore and 8Gb min. I actually thing the extra clock speed is a lot less important than having enough cores and the RAM. Have you considered using a AMD Phenom II X4 instead of a Quad core Q series. Very cost effective. The trick is not to push up the power curve too high. I'd say go for more memory but unless you get a 6 slot board those 2x4Gb memories are still expensive.

TerryE wrote:Then I'd definitely go Quadcore and 8Gb min. I actually thing the extra clock speed is a lot less important than having enough cores and the RAM. Have you considered using a AMD Phenom II X4 instead of a Quad core Q series. Very cost effective. The trick is not to push up the power curve too high. I'd say go for more memory but unless you get a 6 slot board those 2x4Gb memories are still expensive.

Using an AMD Phenom II X4 will require him to replace his motherboard as well, whereas the Core 2 Quad Q9550 will probably just be a direct replacement for the E8400 on the same motherboard.

If it were me, and if I really wanted to use a quad core CPU, I would obviously opt for the Q9550.

But I would agree with you that an increase in RAM is more important than replacing the CPU. In fact, for the applications that he will be using, I believe that the E8400 and the Q9550 will not be too different. So I would recommend him to just add more RAM.

Sorry, you are right. I missed that he was working within his motherboard spec. I do find the way that Intel plays the combinations with its CPUs very frustrating. The low end (e.g. Q8200 and Q8300) don't support VT-x. The main difference between the material difference between the Q8400 an the Q9550 (apart from half the price) is the 4Mb vs 12Mb cache. How much real-world performance impact that has is unclear, but I suspect not a lot.

Thanks guys! As much as I'd like to go quad core, for this, as well as gaming (yes, I'm a gamer), I just can't justify the cost of the CPU at the moment, unless it made one heck of significant improvement.

RAM is so cheap, I might as well do it anyways, what can it hurt, right? LOL. $47 to bump up to 8GB (by adding 4GB more) is quite an inexpensive upgrade for those RAM intensive tasks. Especially with Windows 7 around the bend and its Virtual XP environment.

htwingnut wrote:I just can't justify the cost of the CPU at the moment.

I roll my systems by upgrading every few years. I rarely buy a complete new box. It probably doesn't save me much in $ terms but at least I am not buying what I don't need as a sop to my green conscience. The think that you need to be careful about is: how long are intel going to be producing Q series chips for the LGA775 socket, because if you leave it too long, then your in-motherboard upgrade options might close out. The E8400 is only about 10% slower than the Q9550 for gaming performance (1) but half the price.

TerryE wrote:

htwingnut wrote:I just can't justify the cost of the CPU at the moment.

I roll my systems by upgrading every few years. I rarely buy a complete new box. It probably doesn't save me much in $ terms but at least I am not buying what I don't need as a sop to my green conscience. The think that you need to be careful about is: how long are intel going to be producing Q series chips for the LGA775 socket, because if you leave it too long, then your in-motherboard upgrade options might close out. The E8400 is only about 10% slower than the Q9550 for gaming performance (1) but half the price.

I understand what you're saying. I do something similar. I tend to "pass down" parts to other PC's, when I upgrade my main powerhouse machine. I actually missed the boat with an AMD machine I built that had the 939 pin not the 940 pin AM2, and it's impossible to find a 939 pin AMD CPU's any more.

However, you're saying that the E8400 is 10% slower for gaming, but half the price of the quad, so I guess I don't see an advantage to buying a quad at all then. Although @ Newegg E8400 is $167, Q9550 is $220. That's roughly 32% more expensive for 10% improvement, although based on those benchmarks, I see the E8500 beating the Q9550 in a couple instances.

My E8400 is also running swimmingly at 3.8GHz (air cooled with Zalman, stock voltage, cool as a cucumber: peak 55c, typical load 48C, idle 38c), which is much faster than the E8500 in those benchmarks. Of course this doesn't mean future games won't take better advantage of quad core. But my plan is to do an almost wholesale update in about a year or so with an i7, unless something better comes along in the meantime.

I don't do PC games much though I used to be a Wolfenstein and Lara Craft player. The main reason I was suggesting the quad core was that you were originally talking about your plan to run "Server 2003 plus three Vista virtual machines simultaneously". For games, you are right most don't make use of four cores. What you need here is to invest in a reasonable graphics card and use a second as a physics engine, but that for another forum.

No need to reply