show me that a q6600 is no good now

[Dent1]

Bucho, very informative post.

Most of which I believe is accurate and a reasonable assessment. Mainly in regards to the OP board being too outdated.

The only part I disagree with is the i3 can not outperform the FX 8120 in games. If you look at old reviews back from Bulldozers release in games the i3 seemed more on par with the FX 6100. The FX 8120 could actually hang with and beat the i5 xx in games.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8150_8120_6100_and_4100_performance_review,10.html

Small sample, consisting of only Crysis 2 and Farcry 2, but you get my point.


Other than that I enjoyed your post and don't want to take away from its analysis.

pentium 4 came on 2 sockets. 486 and 775. i was with the 486 socket version..

Actually, it came in 3 sockets, Socket 423, Socket 478, and LGA 775.

But without getting petty, socket LGA 775 had very few P4 single core in its range. The real kick off was the Pentium D's, which were essentially P4s glued together to make a dual core.

 

[Shambles1980]

im not a huge fan on game based benech marks taken with fraps and stuff.
they rarely use my common settings. Its usually maxed out the settings till the gpu is over worked. and get avarage frame rates all across the board of 4/5 fps diference, and then low setting which loads the cpu up which then makes the cpu fps the issue.
they never take the time to do what a normal person does and tweak the settings for the best visuals possible at the resolutions whilst not hitting gpu or cpu limits..
thats what people actually do when they game IMO.
they (or atleast I) set the thing to max, and see what my lowest fps is. if its not good enough then i tweak the settings.
i think that bench tests should so that. and find the settings that allow them to play the game smooth and with no frame rate dips with vsink on.
then report what those settings were for each system, (i have a feeling that with a set up like that the diference between the cpu's would be almost non existant unless it was a cpu heavy game)

So at the end of the day i like to look at synthetic benches futuremark and so on, as they inevitably have the same settings (performance) and you can see how many fps difference each set up at those settings achived.
Again thats not perfect either. but atleast is a more level field..

but i really do think correct tests should be.
i have an i5-2500k and a 6950 on this system and tied to get the following games to play at a constant frame rate. These are the settings i had to use to have 0 frame dropped
the 8120 and 6950 achived the same results at these setting..
And then i would be happy with bench tests.

i really dont see the point in seeing that this card can do 400fps at this resolution with some drops here and there.
All i want to know is what settings does the system have to use to achieve a constant 60fps

 

[Bucho]

Bucho, very informative post.

Most of which I believe is accurate and a reasonable assessment. Mainly in regards to the OP board being too outdated.

The only part I disagree with is the i3 can not outperform the FX 8120 in games. If you look at old reviews back from Bulldozers release in games the i3 seemed more on par with the FX 6100. The FX 8120 could actually hang with and beat the i5 xx in games.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8150_8120_6100_and_4100_performance_review,10.html

Small sample, consisting of only Crysis 2 and Farcry 2, but you get my point.


Other than that I enjoyed your post and don't want to take away from its analysis.



Actually, it came in 3 sockets, Socket 423, Socket 478, and LGA 775.

But without getting petty, socket LGA 775 had very few P4 single core in its range. The real kick off was the Pentium D's, which were essentially P4s glued together to make a dual core.

@Shambles1980
Yes like Dent1 said the P4 came for these 3 sockets so you may have mixed something up there. I guess you mean 478 since that was the most common one for the P4.

@Dent1
In that link there is no i3? But an i3-2xxx should be close to that i5-661 ... maybe a little faster.
Check out this link and click through the games:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/gaming-processor-frame-rate-performance,review-32628-4.html

Frame times are not as good as on the FX-8xxx CPUs ... I guess that's because it is only a dual core with HT. Oh and of course in multithreaded applications like rendering, converting aso. the FX are better than that i3.

 

[Mussels]

wow, this threads still going on?


the OP has upgraded, would love to hear his feedback on performance.

myself, i upgraded from a 1090T to this i5, and benchmarks and reviews didnt show much of a performance difference... but the games i play do. its not about the maximum FPS, its the minimum. getting rid of the worst periods when the game lagged out every now and then is what makes upgrades worth it.

 

[Dent1]

Bucho,

Nothing can be derived from Metro 2033 review as they are all within margin for error. FX and i3 range are within <1FPS. Its actually a draw. I don't think these benchmarks stress the CPU enough to show bigger separation.

Your right the i3-2xxx would be more powerful than the i5-5xx in single threaded applications because its of the newer architecture. (Westmere vs Sandybridge)

I would think the FX Bulldozer would be more geared towards the Westmere, whilst the Piledriver FX towards the Sandy. For example the i5 661 (dual core) Westmere gets destroyed by the Bulldozer FX . The Sandy or Ivy would paint a different story.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8350_8320_6300_processor_4300_performance_review,10.html


Edit:

Also the FX Piledriver seems to outperform the i3 Ivy Bridge and the i7 Nehalem in games too.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/5
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=47

 

[MxPhenom 216]

Max FPS does not matter, but minimum FPS does. You might get 20000 FPS at peak, but if you're getting 2FPS as a minimum, you're not going to be a happy camper. That being said, if you're on an 8120 or whatever it was, i'd stick with that as opposed to selling it and buying an i3... Wait until you have the monies for an i5, otherwise the sidegrade is a worthless waste of time and money.


Hurray for users with common sense.

Unless he aims for the new unlocked i3 or pentium chips being released with the devils canyon parts.

 

[GreiverBlade]

pentium 4 came on 2 sockets. 486 and 775. i was with the 486 socket version..

never seen a skt 486... it is 478 (mostly prescott) and 423 (1 serie P4 williamette) edit: woopsies already corrected

also if i can run crysis 3 of battlefield 4 with a decent fps and not much slowing down on a X4 760K/A10 7700K + a R9 270X a i3 can do it ... but double the price of the 760K for the 1st decent i3 (the A10 is priced similarly but has a stronger IGP, still that's not the point for the OP )

 

[Shambles1980]

yep i mean 478. the 8120 hasnt arrived yet but i will post some comparisons when i can.
il run some some benchies on the Q6600 tonight at 3.0 (whilst i still have it) and gpu at stock.
i already have the higher benches up here.
then il compare them to the 8120.
game wise il have a look at what settings i can play thief at a constant 60fps.
but i dont really have much els installed now (just that and Gothic 3) i been uninstalling games and freeing up space ready for the new install when the 8120 gets here..

incidentally i see that there is a KB update (2 parts) for windows 7x64 after checking up on it it seemed that it was originally pulled (but because ms only released the 1st part of the fix) but then they re released it with the correct 2 parts which need to be installed in the correct order.
It does seem to have improved some on single threaded processes. so i will be trying with and without the update.

 

[Toothless]

I believe it is my 5850 CF.

5850 CF can outperform a single GeForce GTX 295, which was Nvidia's uber high end card back in 2009. 5 years later, the 5850 CF is still a midrange contender, on par with today's AMD 7850

Which video card did you have at the time?

Edit:

I'm sure the OC does help too. Plus my resolution is only 1440x900.

My GPU is an MSI GTX 660 OC, and I play at 1080p. I can't really OC my CPU due to the crappy motherboard I'm currently stuck with.

 

[Dent1]

yep i mean 478. the 8120 hasnt arrived yet but i will post some comparisons when i can.
il run some some benchies on the Q6600 tonight at 3.0 (whilst i still have it) and gpu at stock.
i already have the higher benches up here.
then il compare them to the 8120.
game wise il have a look at what settings i can play thief at a constant 60fps.
but i dont really have much els installed now (just that and Gothic 3) i been uninstalling games and freeing up space ready for the new install when the 8120 gets here..

incidentally i see that there is a KB update (2 parts) for windows 7x64 after checking up on it it seemed that it was originally pulled (but because ms only released the 1st part of the fix) but then they re released it with the correct 2 parts which need to be installed in the correct order.
It does seem to have improved some on single threaded processes. so i will be trying with and without the update.

I would be very interested to see the results of your benchmarks. It will render the trolls and AMD haters mute lol

 

[Shambles1980]

really dont know if thats the case. at best i hope to prove perfectly playable games ate more than acceptable levels. raw numbers probably wont ammount to much. but it will be interesting to see some diferent benches.

its probably good to know that i am truley neutrall when it comes to hardware. i believe at their own times AMD and intel have made the best cpu its just they have never both made the best cpu's at the same time..

i have also gone back and forth between nvidia and ati when it comes to gpu's it has however been a while since i changed to ati. and the reason i did that was because they removed the ability to use over scan and under scan. but i am getting to the point where i may well go back to nvidia as i do seem to get a lot of cards with issues from ati of late (mostly due to power play and not being able to dissable it)

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

I would be very interested to see the results of your benchmarks. It will render the trolls and AMD haters mute lol

Likewise here.

 

[Toothless]

Okay, just something to go towards Dent1. I played BF3 on both resolutions and honestly.. The 620 can't hold up to a 1080p. Your 1440x900 does give me 70-100fps, but the quality does no magic. The game simply looks better at 1080p and the frame difference is about 10-30 frames. Though I'm still playing at 40-60fps at medium-high settings. (At stock clocks)

 

[Shambles1980]

-=Edit=-
valley seems to revert to default settings when you hit bench mark so my original post is kind of pointless.
the only thing i can change is the resolution which dosent really help with what i want to do. any way here is the original post, but the only relevant part of it is the resolutions i use

------
ORIGINAL POST
-------


ok doing some benchies right now.
im only using valley as i figured will do dx11 dx9 and open gl

settings are
quality high
single monitor
AA off
1920x1080

 

[Dent1]

Okay, just something to go towards Dent1. I played BF3 on both resolutions and honestly.. The 620 can't hold up to a 1080p. Your 1440x900 does give me 70-100fps, but the quality does no magic. The game simply looks better at 1080p and the frame difference is about 10-30 frames. Though I'm still playing at 40-60fps at medium-high settings. (At stock clocks)

Although I run @ only 1440x900, I do apply 4x anti aliasing to give the impression of running 1080p whilst not suffering from the big frame rate penalty. If you're running AA @ 1080p this could be eating your performance. AA is a frame rate killer at high resolution.

You'd get better performance at lower resolution with AA than 1080p with no AA.

 

[Toothless]

Although I run @ only 1440x900, I do apply 4x anti aliasing to give the impression of running 1080p whilst not suffering from the big frame rate penalty. If you're running AA @ 1080p this could be eating your performance. AA is a frame rate killer at high resolution.

You'd get better performance at lower resolution with AA than 1080p with no AA.

I never use AA. I'll have to give it another try.

 

[Dent1]

I never use AA. I'll have to give it another try.

Its very addictive. AA, literally straightens all the jagged lines in games. Its hard to go back afterwards.

View the image below

 

[Toothless]

Its very addictive. AA, literally straightens all the jagged lines in games. Its hard to go back afterwards.

View the image below

Lemme ramp up all of my fans and try this. I've been having issues due to it being like, 80F outside and we have no AC.

 

[Shambles1980]

ok did all my samples for the q6600..
After trying all my bench software theirs nothing i can do to make the minimum fps better. so that is the cpu as at the same res with lower quality the min fps is the same. maximum goes up and obviously as a result so does the average. thats when using fire strike, and if i cant change the settings on that then i will keep the variables as low as possible by using all quality settings at defaults and only changing resolutions.

i chose to use the 3 valley tests at 1080p.
gpu test 2, physics test, and combined test of 3dmark's fire strike bench.
and ice storm Gpu test 1 and physics test, (3dmark)

fire strike is hard on gpu and cpu usage, valley isnt that bad. and icestorm is gentle.
so thats tough, normal, and easy. in terms of gpu/cpu needs. at the same res and same quality settings. (i think thats about as fair as i can make it removing as many variables as possible)

the q6600 results are in for now 8120 will get the same tests when it gets here..

Valley 1920x1080 (full screen)


min:
18.3 (dx11)
15.1(dx9)
15.0 (opengl)

Max:
73.6(dx11)
76.5(dx9)
58.3 (opengl)

average:
42.6 (dx11)
41.2(dx9)
32.1(opengl)

the 3dmark results are in the form of png image(s) so i will post those here directly. 1920x1080 (full screen)

Fire strike:

IceStorm:

i don't like stupid meaningless scores so its min fps max fps and average..

pretty sure that the resolution + settings is a reasonable place to compare. the 3.0ghz "25% oc" on the q6600 should be something every board and even stock cooling can handle, so its a fair place to set it.
if you want different resolutions chose 1 and i will try and do that before this gets packed up.
and if you want the q6600 maxed out then they are already in my 1st post.

When i add the 8120 it will have the same amount of ram And to be fair i will oc it 25% or to the highest safe setting i think every one can achieve without burning the house down or having a home sounding like a wind farm *which ever setting is lowest*

I made a ridiculously basic html page. i may improve on it if i care to do so, but i really probably wont lol.
here is the web page. (has the valley results in html form in there) http://shambles1980.x10.mx/


Thief 2014 results.

there really is not much i can do with the q6600 clocked at 3.0 and the gpu at stock oc. the game simply cant run at a constant 60fps no matter what settings i change.
Any way the closest i could get to to best graphics balance with acceptable game play "constantly" gave me 60fps dropping as low as 44fps for a short while.

the test was done in the jewelers store early in the game. this handled the low requirements whilst in doors with most lights off (some rooms were left lit for transitional lighting)
and also a quick burst out side in to the rain and lightning where 3 guards find me and start chasing around increasing the action.
This resulted in the drops of 44fps during the high action outside run but only for a second or 2 when running down the open length of the outside alley.

Defiantly more than playable and if i did not have afterburner running to tell me the fps then i doubt i would have noticed..
tried all kinds of settings and resolutions what i ended up settling for as the best all round compromise was:

Full screen: on
Exclusive full screen: on
v-synk: double buffer
res: 1280x720
Refresh rate 60hz

field of view: 90
texture: Normal
4x AA
shadow quality: normal
parallax occlusion mapping: off
ssaa: off
fxaa: off
Contact hardening shadows: off
tessellation: off

the frames of the bench results were.
15.1Minimum and
63.9 max
average of aproximatley 33
(i have to approximate the average by watching msi after burner as the delay start reports min fps as 0. but they are really 15.) the bench reports average as 29.8

(same settings at 1080p gave max frames of 44.8 in the bench test btw.)

That completes all the tests for the q6600. the low drops in game of 44 IMO are cpu bottling as i cant get them higher than that with editing settings. but i was able to get the average speeds to stay higher with the settings i chose. a higer resolution gives me more drops in to the 50's which is then the gpu.
these settings work the best for the gpu. but at the 3.0 ghz of the cpu the lowest frames will never be higer.
this is also further proven by higher low fps points when running at 3.6ghz.

so now I'm off to use one of my core 2 duo systems whilst i wait for my new board to arrive.

the next update will be the 8120 results.

ok so thief bench test. same as before with the settings. the 8120 did a little better but not really enough to warrant much fan fare.
as usuall the game reports min fps as 0 because of delayed start but msi after burner repoted it as 14.5 (.6 slower than the q6600)
but through out the test the 8120 was able to be consistantly higer and ended up with 63.5 max (lower than the q6600)
and aproximatley 36 avarage (which is quite a bit better) given the lower max frames (but same 0 frames reported) to achieve this the 8120 had to be more consistant or with less low drops during the test.
the actual avarage reported by the bench was 33.9 (4.1fps better than then q6600 achived with higer max frames)

so it looks prety good for the 8120 so far for being more consistant..

the actuall game..
again it was reasonably close. with the 8120 being slighjtly more consistant at staying in the 60fps requested of it. but it too suffered some drops mostly in to the 50's but 1ce diped down to 41.5 (slightly lower than the q6600s lowest point) i must stress however that this was for one small second once, where as i could repeat the 44fps drop with the q6600 every time i ran down the open length of the court yard. the 8120 only did it once and managed to stay at 60.1 fps when i ran down the same path again a few times (possibly throtteling due to the vrm)

The only conclusion i can take from this is that with this board and cpu you would notice no reall difference gaming at the settings using this cpu at stock vs a over clocked q6600 at 3.0
Again i need to stress that this is a slighjtly unfair test due to the fact that this board is 3+1 and will occasionally throttle the cpu to 2.8 when under load.

on to the synthetic tests.
valley bench

min:
15.1 (dx11)
15.4(dx9)
14.6 (opengl)

Max:
74.1(dx11)
78.1(dx9)
66.1 (opengl)

average:
41.6 (dx11)
40.3(dx9)
32.5(opengl)

from here we again see that these 2 processors are again very close provided the q6600 is over clocked to 3.0. and the fx-8120 is locked to 3.1ghz and gets throttled down due to stupid 3+1 power phase.
(how often it gets throttled to 2.8 however i dont know. but if we assume it never does. and was always running at 3.1 with turbo mode off. then the 8120 is atleast on par with a q6600)
As i said earlier this test is very biast in favour of the q6600 due to the stupid 3+1 power phase board which I will be replacing..

any way 3d mark.

here the 8120 seems to do prety much exactly the same as the q6600 in the gpu test. which would imply that the gpu is the limiting factor in this test.
Suprizingly (atleast to me) the 8120 actually performs the physics tests better than the q6600 even when hindered.
and in the combined test its a more even playing feild but the 8120 at 3.1 seems to be able to keep the frames at a more consitsnat rate compared to the q6600..

the q6600 performs quite a bit better here in terms of actuall raw numbers but the graph seems to show the 8120 is more consistant even when hindered..
but in the physics test the 3.0 q6600 is outright better than the 8120 at 3.1..
Which is strange as in the previous physics test it was the other way arround. (again this could be due to throtteling)


so.. wit this set up and the 8120 Locked at 3.1ghz with occasional throtteling down to 2.8ghz "due to stupid mother board" and being unable to utilize built in features such as turbo mode.
the 8120 and 25% oc q6600 seem to be about even...

this is actually a better result for the 8120 than i expected when i found out i was stuck with a 3+1 phase board and it throttled down under load.
If the 8120 had been allowed to use its turbo mode then the q6600 would not have kept up at 3.0 but at 3.6.. I think it probably would have.

so in the end.. i have to say that a stock 8120 would be better than a 25% oc'd q6600. because it would be able to use its turbo mode and hit 4ghz.
unfortunatly i cannot test that out untill i get atleast a 6+2 board.

but these cpu's running at very similar clock speeds are really close in terms of power per mhz. I would have to say the q6600 has slightly better performance for its mhz, but the 8120 on the right board can surpass the q6600 in terms of over clocking.
and if we are looking at stock cooling all round with the correct boards for each cpu then the 8120 would be the winner simply due to the higher clock speeds.

Is it an upgrade?
Well if you did like me and simply swapped your q6600 for the 8120 then yes i guess it is..
if you would need to pay more for the 8120 setup than you could get for your Q6600.. Then probably not Unless you cannot over clock your q6600

hope to get the new board soon and update this with more valid results..

 

[OneMoar]

the 8120 will walk all over the Q6660 it will use twice the power of i7 and be 30% slower then a i7 but it will walk all over a 775 chip I recently build a budget core i5 and R7 265x and it blows the amd chips out of the water for about 100 dollars more and the difference in power consumption will more then account for that eventually
don't get me wrong its fine to settle for a AMD chip hell in the majority of cases you won't see any difference

 

[Delta6326]

Hey #shambles1980 what volts you running on your q6600 for 3ghz? I used to have mine oced a long time ago. Currently running stock though. Been thinking of trying again.

 

[HalfAHertz]

the 8120 will walk all over the Q6660 it will use twice the power of i7 and be 30% slower then a i7 but it will walk all over a 775 chip I recently build a budget core i5 and R7 265x and it blows the amd chips out of the water for about 100 dollars more and the difference in power consumption will more then account for that eventually
don't get me wrong its fine to settle for a AMD chip hell in the majority of cases you won't see any difference

That's true. Don't forget that AMDs are overclockable and come at the same price as the more affordable non-overclockable i3s and i5s. So even tho they perform somewhat sub par at stock, if cooling and power usage are not too big of an issue, you can reach and even surpass the intel performance for the same price.

The old phenom IIs and Athlon IIs needed between 300 and 600MHz to have similar performance to a Nehalem i7, depending on the task; Bulldozer a Piledriver need about 800 to 1200MHz to perform the same as an Ivy Bridge/ Haswell. That's still a reachable goal.

Most people on TPU like to compare AMD's offerings only to the K series and forget that outside of the US, there's a really stark difference in price between the lower end i3s, i5s and AMDs versus the overclockable K-series i5s and i7s. 100$+ is quite a bit of money in a lot of places.

If I do some back of the napkin calculations, and take the worst case possible, if we say that at full load an AMD would use 100W more than an Intel, and that your computer is working at full load 100% of the time for 8 hours a day, that'd be about 58.4$ per year if electricity was 0.2$ per kWh (seems to be a good average). So you'd need at least 2 years under this unrealistic load to cover the difference in price just in electricity.

 

[Mussels]

That's true. Don't forget that AMDs are overclockable and come at the same price as the more affordable non-overclockable i3s and i5s. So even tho they perform somewhat sub par at stock, if cooling and power usage are not too big of an issue, you can reach and even surpass the intel performance for the same price.

The old phenom IIs and Athlon IIs needed between 300 and 600MHz to have similar performance to a Nehalem i7, depending on the task; Bulldozer a Piledriver need about 800 to 1200MHz to perform the same as an Ivy Bridge/ Haswell. That's still a reachable goal.

Most people on TPU like to compare AMD's offerings only to the K series and forget that outside of the US, there's a really stark difference in price between the lower end i3s, i5s and AMDs versus the overclockable K-series i5s and i7s. 100$+ is quite a bit of money in a lot of places.

If I do some back of the napkin calculations, and take the worst case possible, if we say that at full load an AMD would use 100W more than an Intel, and that your computer is working at full load 100% of the time for 8 hours a day, that'd be about 58.4$ per year if electricity was 0.2$ per kWh (seems to be a good average). So you'd need at least 2 years under this unrealistic load to cover the difference in price just in electricity.

dont forget that some non K intels can in fact, overclock. i've got 600MHz out of mine.

 

[HalfAHertz]

dont forget that some non K intels can in fact, overclock. i've got 600MHz out of mine.

You are right, I forgot that. But I think that it works only on specific motherboards, not sure.

Edit: Drats my cpu has only 2 unlockable bins.

 

[Shambles1980]

Hey #shambles1980 what volts you running on your q6600 for 3ghz? I used to have mine oced a long time ago. Currently running stock though. Been thinking of trying again.

you can usually get 3.0 on stock voltage. (1.28v maybe 1.3)
I cant just tell you what voltages to use though. what you tell the bios and what it actually ends up sending to the cpu is never exactly the same. if you told my old motherboard "abit quad gt" to send 1.556v then all the chip ever gets is 1.48v.. (even when it whats more) and you had to go up to 1.6v in the bios to get to 1.54v on the actual cpu..
but even 3.7 oc never needed to draw more than 1.5v, anything over 1.55v i would not recommend though. and the more power you send the hotter it gets. so it simply is a matter of start at the lowest voltages run occt and watch the temps. if it errors with good temps the cpu needed more power.

but 3.0 is easy just 333 on the fsb same multiple and dont change the voltages should easily get to windows. then run occt and see if you get an error on any of the cores. if you do go 1 up on the voltages and try again till you dont get the error.
thats the best way to do it, remember to change your ram / fsb ratio
some will let you get to 800mhz running a 333 fsb. otheres would have you at 900+ or 667, when your testing for stable voltages always have your ram at stock or slower speeds.
if your board supports a fsb of 1600 then 400 x 8 is a nice 3.2 oc as it brings the fsb speed up to the max and you can easily set the ram to 800mhs with 2:1 but 3.2 and up is where you start to need some decent cooling if its something you want to use every day..

That's true. Don't forget that AMDs are overclockable and come at the same price as the more affordable non-overclockable i3s and i5s. So even tho they perform somewhat sub par at stock, if cooling and power usage are not too big of an issue, you can reach and even surpass the intel performance for the same price.

The old phenom IIs and Athlon IIs needed between 300 and 600MHz to have similar performance to a Nehalem i7, depending on the task; Bulldozer a Piledriver need about 800 to 1200MHz to perform the same as an Ivy Bridge/ Haswell. That's still a reachable goal.

Most people on TPU like to compare AMD's offerings only to the K series and forget that outside of the US, there's a really stark difference in price between the lower end i3s, i5s and AMDs versus the overclockable K-series i5s and i7s. 100$+ is quite a bit of money in a lot of places.

If I do some back of the napkin calculations, and take the worst case possible, if we say that at full load an AMD would use 100W more than an Intel, and that your computer is working at full load 100% of the time for 8 hours a day, that'd be about 58.4$ per year if electricity was 0.2$ per kWh (seems to be a good average). So you'd need at least 2 years under this unrealistic load to cover the difference in price just in electricity.

on the over clocking front. i have ordered a Xigmatek Aegir SD128264 which should let me get a nice stable oc out of the 8120