Core i7 940 vs Core 2 Quad Q6600

drewU2 wrote on 10/29/2009, 9:14 AM
Hey All,
I am a wedding videographer, who spends about 500 hours a year editing video. I am trying to decide if I want to spend an extra $500 to sell my current computer to upgrade and if it would be worth it. Here are my current specs:

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4ghz
8gb ddr2 RAM @ 800mhz (dual channel)
500gb HD (x2)
ATI Radeon HD 3650 (512mb)

VS What I can upgrade right now to for an extra $500 (after selling my rig)

Intel Core i7 940 2.93ghz
6gb ddr3 RAM @ 1333mhz (triple channel)
500gb HD (x2)
Nvidia GT220 (1gb)

Any thoughts on if this is worth the cost vs. time savings?

Comments

ChipGallo wrote on 10/29/2009, 9:32 AM
Your system specs show you on Vista. Are you upgrading that too?
drewU2 wrote on 10/29/2009, 9:45 AM
Actually, now both systems are on Windows 7.
FrigidNDEditing wrote on 10/29/2009, 10:39 AM
I'd say that there is little doubt that you'll see a worth while improvement for just $500 accross that many hours a year editing. I'd do it w/o batting an eye.

Dave
Byron K wrote on 10/29/2009, 11:45 AM
This was posted a while back may help you decide. I think your Core2 Quad is plenty fast though.

Video encoding performance specs look impressive:
www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3634&p=12

Sony Vegas Pro 8: Blu-ray Disc Creation:
www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3634&p=14
JohnnyRoy wrote on 10/29/2009, 2:47 PM
> Video encoding performance specs look impressive

Very interesting article. Of course in 1H2010 the 6-Core Gulftown CPUs will be here. (...it never ends) ;-)

~jr
willlisub wrote on 10/29/2009, 6:45 PM
I did what you are talking about. I sold a Q6600 (1of 2) and spent another $400 + and upgraded to a i7 860 2.8. I haven't had time to overclock but am running Win 7 Pro and I get 50% + increase in rendering times. I edit 1920x1080 qt footage from Canon 5D these days.

I would give you a 100% vote to upgrade your computer.
srode wrote on 10/29/2009, 7:11 PM
Most of your time is probably spent editting - not rendering - rendering is the only thing you will really see improvement in that saves time - I'm waiting for a while - about the same system but overclocked. You can overclock that 6600 to 3.33ghz with a good cooler easily if your MB will let you.
DGates wrote on 10/29/2009, 7:15 PM
That sounds good.
drewU2 wrote on 10/29/2009, 7:41 PM
Well, my computer is a Dell 518 so I can't overclock, and don't really want to go down that road anyhow because I don't want to think too much about it.

And the computer I would be buying is a Dell Studio XPS 435 that I can't overclock either. Am I making a mistake here? I wanted to keep it simple and not have to learn how to overclock, and I have always liked my Dell computers.

I would love more feedback. I am about to buy the i7 940 desktop I think.
PassTheHat wrote on 10/30/2009, 2:41 AM
I’d want more RAM. At least 2GB per core with 4GB leftover for the system. 12 GB total. My $.02 only.
warriorking wrote on 10/30/2009, 7:35 AM
In my case I upgraded from a Q9550 to a i7Core 920 and knocked close to an hour off my render times in Vegas, thats in Vista 64 Bit...The Windows 7 times are the same... I would vote yes for the upgrade.....
Editguy43 wrote on 10/30/2009, 10:48 AM
Overclocking is a dangerous thing sometimes it is very easy to damage your system, IMO it is better to get a faster CPU than overclock and damage a slower one.

My friend just got a Core i7 920 6 gig ram and a Radeon 4870 and that thing SMOKES my Q6600 Quad. He can rip a DVD in less than 10 min. and his render time in Premier is very fast.

I cant wait till I can build my Core i7 early next year, maybe if I cross my eyes and fingers they will have tht i9 out by then. :-D .

But anyway you will see a big improvement in your time for not much inversment..

Paul B
drewU2 wrote on 10/30/2009, 1:40 PM
I bought the Dell Studio XPS 435 full tower. Here are the specs:

Intel Core i7 940 2.93ghz
6gb DDR3 (triple channel)
500gb (x2) 7200rpm SATA
1tb (x1) 7200rpm eSATA
1gb Nvidia GT220

I will post specs when I have a chance. Let me know if you'd like to see the comparison numbers. Thanks for the advice.
srode wrote on 10/30/2009, 3:19 PM
Overclocking isn't for everyone - it can damage parts - but it doesn't take much to learn how to do it safely and it's really quite easy - I've been running mine overclocked for a couple years nad haven't had any problems yet - and it's very fast for plain jane quad core - render times went down proportionately to the increase in CPU speed.
Jeff9329 wrote on 10/30/2009, 5:13 PM
Just get a Q9659 & be done with it.
MPM wrote on 10/31/2009, 11:47 AM
for anyone upgrading TOTALLY FWIW...

I'd suggest looking at Intel's 5 vs. 7. Might also look at AMD.

Personally I've always gone ATI, but Cuda is a lot more prevalent than ATI's stream tech, so you might have a good choice there. That said, ATI's new card is supposed to be killer. Right now if/when I can get my cheapie 4870 involved encoding, I'm loving it. ;-)

Right now RAM prices are up a bit -- after the 1st of the year may drop again? Might keep one eye on preserving your options, like making sure you have empty slots &/or system will take more than 8GB etc... if RAM gets cheap again next spring being able to add to what you've got could be very nice. [last year I picked up 2 GB of OCZ DDR2 for $5 after MIR!]