Worth Upgrading from E6850 to Core 2 Quad Q9650? gaming wise and general PC perf

Not at all.Your CPU is pretty damn good.

Your graphics card is the limiting factor.Get a better one and only then think about getting a quad core.

Not at all.Your CPU is pretty damn good.

Your graphics card is the limiting factor.Get a better one and only then think about getting a quad core.

Thinker_reborn

I've seen benchmarks of i7 cpu's, and it didnt look like they were a vast improvement over core 2 duo's in Gaming tests, other tests yes, but didnt seem worth the huge money, and yes ive read all about i7, i would like one in the future but not yet. So you all would recommend me just upgrading my gpu?

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTU4MCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

1st test is ridiculous, but the others prove that it doesnt seem to be much better

Worth it for GTAIV and Alan Wake to come.teddyrob

Don't listen to this guy. He uses these 2 examples in every forum, worships quad-cores. Your CPU is fine for now. Get a better video card.

[QUOTE="teddyrob"]Worth it for GTAIV and Alan Wake to come.hartsickdiscipl

Don't listen to this guy. He uses these 2 examples in every forum, worships quad-cores. Your CPU is fine for now. Get a better video card.

It is better to listen to a guy who has built both Dual core and Quad core systems then listen to a guy who only knows about dual core and has no experience of a quad core.

I can see where you are coming from though when I had only single core I was fighting to stay with it as long as possible saying I don't need a dual core, this single core plays everything blah blah but really I just just being stubborn and holding on to my system for as long as I could.

The Q6600 is a bargain at its current price,,,if your going to get one buy it now because they are out of prudction so the price is going to rise!Daytona_178

Price is rising for the Quads we are in a recession and business need to make money. Applications and games beginning to make the Quad core an attractive buy is pushing the price up. In the last weeks maybe because of GTAIV the Quad Q6600 has risen £10. It costs £50 more than I paid for it.

[QUOTE="Daytona_178"]The Q6600 is a bargain at its current price,,,if your going to get one buy it now because they are out of prudction so the price is going to rise!teddyrob

Price is rising for the Quads we are in a recession and business need to make money. Applications and games beginning to make the Quad core an attractive buy is pushing the price up. In the last weeks maybe because of GTAIV the Quad Q6600 has risen £10. It costs £50 more than I paid for it.

[QUOTE="teddyrob"]

[QUOTE="Daytona_178"]The Q6600 is a bargain at its current price,,,if your going to get one buy it now because they are out of prudction so the price is going to rise!Mr_NoName111

Price is rising for the Quads we are in a recession and business need to make money. Applications and games beginning to make the Quad core an attractive buy is pushing the price up. In the last weeks maybe because of GTAIV the Quad Q6600 has risen £10. It costs £50 more than I paid for it.

You would think so wouldn't you but price is tied to otherthings like petrol costs, electricity cost, costs of phone calls, employees wages etc.

When I'm out shopping for those things prices have certainly increase. Houses cars etc expensive electronics TV etc are dropping. Inexpensive stuff is rising.

Q6600 has increase 50% since the months I've bought it and other CPU in the Intel range have also increase from low end to middle end. The real high end has fallen though.

Look what happened to Germany in the late 20 early 30 recession. They were coming home with wheelbarrows full of money because the value of their money was falling. The value of the dollar and the pound has both fallen.

[QUOTE="Mr_NoName111"][QUOTE="teddyrob"]

Price is rising for the Quads we are in a recession and business need to make money. Applications and games beginning to make the Quad core an attractive buy is pushing the price up. In the last weeks maybe because of GTAIV the Quad Q6600 has risen £10. It costs £50 more than I paid for it.

teddyrob

You would think so wouldn't you but price is tied to otherthings like petrol costs, electricity cost, costs of phone calls, employees wages etc.

When I'm out shopping for those things prices have certainly increase. Houses cars etc expensive electronics TV etc are dropping.

Q6600 has increase 50% since the months I've bought it and other CPU in the Intel range have also increase from low end to middle end. The real high end has fallen though.

but i did think the q9550 being 45nm would be better and also these features :

- Intel Wide Dynamic Execution - Enabling delivery of more instructions per clock cycle to improve execution time and energy efficiency
- Intel Intelligent Power Capability - Designed to deliver more energy-efficient performance
- Intel Smart Memory Access - Improving system performance by optimizing the use of the available data bandwidth
- Intel Advanced Smart Cache - Providing a higher-performance, more efficient cache subsystem. Optimized for multi-core and dual-core processors
- Intel Advanced Digital Media Boost - Accelerating a broad range of applications, including video, speech and image, photo processing, encryption, financial, engineering and scientific applications. Now improved even further on 45nm versions with Intel HD Boost utilizing new SSE4 instructions for even better multimedia performance

how much does 12mb cache help?

but this does seem simple q6600--

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-211-IN&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=567&name=Intel%20Core%202%20Quad%20Pro%20Q6600%202.40GHz%20Guaranteed%20to%20run%20at%203.30GHZ%20(1466FSB)%20-%20Retail

[QUOTE="teddyrob"][QUOTE="Mr_NoName111"] Actually, a recession lowers the prices of all goods. I don't know where you learned that, but as the demand lowers the stock begins to pile up. This is universal for electronics, cars, etc.Daytona_178

You would think so wouldn't you but price is tied to otherthings like petrol costs, electricity cost, costs of phone calls, employees wages etc.

When I'm out shopping for those things prices have certainly increase. Houses cars etc expensive electronics TV etc are dropping.

Q6600 has increase 50% since the months I've bought it and other CPU in the Intel range have also increase from low end to middle end. The real high end has fallen though.

Price goes up if more want it because then the buisiness can make more money from a high demand product. If nobody wants it price lowers. You have it all back to front. Any way price has risen 50% for the Q6600 in the last 6months. If fact Q6600 was cheaper last year when I built for my dad. The dual cores are also more expensive than when I built for my girlfriends dad. There is more than just these variables in this world many factors determine price far more than the ones we have talked about. The only reason i7 920 are so cheap is to make you buy them because motherboards and DDR3 is more expensive and they make their money back there. As I've explained people want to make as much money as they can from you because they can.

I havent seen the price of the q6600 going up, if so it is because they are or will be very soon be EOLed. The Yorkfields tend to overclock better and have a much larger cache (atleast the q9550s. Why would Intel drop their prices? Their only cometition in the high end market is themselves. From what Ive seen the Phenom II cant compete with a Yorkfield, although will will see more indepth reviews soon. The I7s are no joke and the I5s are right around the corner as well.artiedeadat40

[QUOTE="artiedeadat40"]I havent seen the price of the q6600 going up, if so it is because they are or will be very soon be EOLed. The Yorkfields tend to overclock better and have a much larger cache (atleast the q9550s. Why would Intel drop their prices? Their only cometition in the high end market is themselves. From what Ive seen the Phenom II cant compete with a Yorkfield, although will will see more indepth reviews soon. The I7s are no joke and the I5s are right around the corner as well.Daytona_178

I dont know Ive seen some of those lower binned yorkies overclocking pretty well. Although I would rather get a q6600 than a q8200, myself.

I havent seen the price of the q6600 going up, if so it is because they are or will be very soon be EOLed. artiedeadat40

£160 now

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-161-IN&tool=3

and read down the review. Someone bought it at £117 and another at £100 and someone way back Aug 2007 for £150.

Although I would rather get a q6600 than a q8200, myself.artiedeadat40

What about the Q9300 those 3 practically perform the same?

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="teddyrob"]Worth it for GTAIV and Alan Wake to come.teddyrob

Don't listen to this guy. He uses these 2 examples in every forum, worships quad-cores. Your CPU is fine for now. Get a better video card.

It is better to listen to a guy who has built both Dual core and Quad core systems then listen to a guy who only knows about dual core and has no experience of a quad core.

I can see where you are coming from though when I had only single core I was fighting to stay with it as long as possible saying I don't need a dual core, this single core plays everything blah blah but really I just just being stubborn and holding on to my system for as long as I could.

I have also built both and have experience using both and right now which u pick all depends on circumstances, yes Quads are now becoming the thing to have but if you have a good dual then why change.

TC: your dual is good enough no need to change right now, wait another year or so and see what comes out and how prices go, if you had a real bad dual or a single core or was just building a whole new system then id say get a quad but as you have a pretty good dual already dont bother right now its not worth changing, there aint many games that require a quad, UT3 plays better on a quad and so does crysis apparantly but then again they both play pretty well on a dual, the only game really requiring a quad at the mo is GTA4, Alan Wake is still months away and unless u really want that game whats the point in changing.

Worth it for GTAIV and Alan Wake to come.teddyrob

can nobody answer the 2nd or 3rd question :)jamesfffan

No no, just save your money.

E6850 is more than enough, and you won't see any performance gains from upgrading, unless you do video encoding or buy that horribly optimized game gta4

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="teddyrob"]Worth it for GTAIV and Alan Wake to come.teddyrob

Don't listen to this guy. He uses these 2 examples in every forum, worships quad-cores. Your CPU is fine for now. Get a better video card.

It is better to listen to a guy who has built both Dual core and Quad core systems then listen to a guy who only knows about dual core and has no experience of a quad core.

I can see where you are coming from though when I had only single core I was fighting to stay with it as long as possible saying I don't need a dual core, this single core plays everything blah blah but really I just just being stubborn and holding on to my system for as long as I could.

Face it, you don't need Quad-Cores for gaming right now. GTA4 is the saddest excuse for a port made by such a large developer. People with i7's and 4870x2's still have it lag on them. If they optimized it like they should have then a Core 2 Duo would be able to easily run it. Alan Wake, will take advantage of Quad-Cores but we don't know the performance it has on Dual-Cores, for all we know it could possibly run just fine on a Dual-Core system and just better on the Quad-Core (which does not justify an upgrade if its entirely playable on a Dual-Core, UT3 is similar to this).

I've been researching and building computers for the last ten years. I provide logic and non-skewed evidence behind my reasoning and not ignorance about what to get because of what I already have. I'm sorry but the arguments you have presented in this thread and the other thread alone has made you lose much if not all credibility you have in my opinion and I should just tell others to please not take teddyrob's advice without doing proper research.

As for the TC's original question. You would see a performance increase by going from the E6850 to a Q9650 due to the higher L2 Cache and architecture in general performance and a slight to large increase depending on the overclock. Not to mention that its 45nm die size on the Q9650 would allow a larger overclock typically. However, as others have said, since the E6850 isn't a bad CPU right now you might as well wait for the Phenom II processors to come out because they should bring down the price of all the other Quad-Cores significantly. That way you have a much wider library of Quad processors that you could choose from for a lower price.

For right now though, I would upgrade that 3850 since it would increase your gaming performance the most. I really wouldn't go for less than a HD 4850 but would highly recommend a HD 4870 1GB or GTX 260 Core 216 to upgrade to. Both deliver similiar performance and are relatively similiar priced. The only real large differences between the two is that the 4870 has DirectX 10.1 support while the GTX 260 has CUDA physics support. Also, the GTX 260 typically runs cooler and quieter but also is usually about $15-$20 more expensive.

We had a huge argument in another thread were you would not accept the fact the E8500 would be a better pick over the Q6600. You provided absurd benchmarks in which both CPU's were bottlenecked by the GPU and the Q6600 happened to take the lead by 0.16 FPS. However when I showed you when they are not bottlenecked (by turning down the graphical settings) from the same website you got reviews and the E8500 obliterated the Q6600, you disappeared from the thread.

EXLINK

Yet you have provided your opinion with little or no benchmarks or a benchmark with a dual core highly overclocked must winning by 1FSP with a Quad Q6600 at stock. When a game gets over 60FPS 1 or 2 frames per second makes no difference that represents a very small percentage. In a game like GTAIV we are seeing up to 50% increase in performance with a Quad core at the same MHz as a dual core. When the dual is getting 20-30 FPS this means the Quad is getting 30-45FPS. That is the difference between barely playable and playable this is when it matters not at 60FPS vs 65FPS that doesn't matter no more as both have achieved the gamers gold standard of 60FPS.

Face it, you don't need Quad-Cores for gaming right now. GTA4 is the saddest excuse for a port made by such a large developer. People with i7's and 4870x2's still have it lag on them. If they optimized it like they should have then a Core 2 Duo would be able to easily run it. Alan Wake, will take advantage of Quad-Cores but we don't know the performance it has on Dual-Cores, for all we know it could possibly run just fine on a Dual-Core system and just better on the Quad-Core (which does not justify an upgrade if its entirely playable on a Dual-Core, UT3 is similar to this).

EXLINK

I do need quad core for gaming right now. GTAIV is an amazing game that isn't poor optimised at all. It is just a game that demands the best hardware because it is technically advanced in terms of games with highly advanced physics and game play and graphics. Dual cores will run these games but you will not get the full experience with dual cores, reduced settings and lower FPS. Alan Wake was designed on a Quad core overclocked to 3.8Ghz so you can see that it isn't going to perform to the same standard with a dual core at 3Ghz. You can't make new cores on the processor by overclocking but you can increase the performance of those cores but when a game is designed to use 4 cores then you are using only 2 you can see this is going to cause some slow downs or you will just have to reduce a lot of the settings.

I've been researching and building computers for the last ten years. I provide logic and non-skewed evidence behind my reasoning and not ignorance about what to get because of what I already have. I'm sorry but the arguments you have presented in this thread and the other thread alone has made you lose much if not all credibility you have in my opinion and I should just tell others to please not take teddyrob's advice without doing proper research.

EXLINK

10 years ? well you will know that nothing lasts in the world of computing, you would have upgraded many many times in those 10 years for games yes? For individual games? Games like Half life, Quake, Doom, Halflife2 Doom3, Halo you name it I don't know but the ability to play games is the reason for these upgrades myself, if you are playing games that is, you may not. Gamers want to play these games at the highest settings not the lowest. we have all seen the threads what system do I need to play these at the highest settings. Well this is why my advice is always going to be the best hardware that gets the gamers using the highest settings not the lowest ones. Thus is why I have been giving the advice to gamers to buy Quad core and not dual core. Dual core has got you playing on the highest settings in the past but now it's not so sure you will be able to play on the highest settings with the same frame rates as the guys with the quad cores. Do you see where I'm coming from now. I want the guys to have the best PCs not the mediocre or just enough to do the job at a lower level.

Hope you can understand that and please don't let this drag out into insults and trying to belittle a member of the community who only wants people to get the best hardware they can to avoid disappoints in the future.

[QUOTE="EXLINK"]

Yet you have provided your opinion with little or no benchmarks or a benchmark with a dual core highly overclocked must winning by 1FSP with a Quad Q6600 at stock. When a game gets over 60FPS 1 or 2 frames per second makes no difference that represents a very small percentage. In a game like GTAIV we are seeing up to 50% increase in performance with a Quad core at the same MHz as a dual core. When the dual is getting 20-30 FPS this means the Quad is getting 30-45FPS. That is the difference between barely playable and playable this is when it matters not at 60FPS vs 65FPS that doesn't matter no more as both have achieved the gamers gold standard of 60FPS.

[QUOTE="EXLINK"]Face it, you don't need Quad-Cores for gaming right now. GTA4 is the saddest excuse for a port made by such a large developer. People with i7's and 4870x2's still have it lag on them. If they optimized it like they should have then a Core 2 Duo would be able to easily run it. Alan Wake, will take advantage of Quad-Cores but we don't know the performance it has on Dual-Cores, for all we know it could possibly run just fine on a Dual-Core system and just better on the Quad-Core (which does not justify an upgrade if its entirely playable on a Dual-Core, UT3 is similar to this).

teddyrob

I do need quad core for gaming right now. GTAIV is an amazing game that isn't poor optimised at all. It is just a game that demands the best hardware because it is technically advanced in terms of games with highly advanced physics and game play and graphics. Dual cores will run these games but you will not get the full experience with dual cores, reduced settings and lower FPS. Alan Wake was designed on a Quad core overclocked to 3.8Ghz so you can see that it isn't going to perform to the same standard with a dual core at 3Ghz. You can't make new cores on the processor by overclocking but you can increase the performance of those cores but when a game is designed to use 4 cores then you are using only 2 you can see this is going to cause some slow downs or you will just have to reduce a lot of the settings.

I've been researching and building computers for the last ten years. I provide logic and non-skewed evidence behind my reasoning and not ignorance about what to get because of what I already have. I'm sorry but the arguments you have presented in this thread and the other thread alone has made you lose much if not all credibility you have in my opinion and I should just tell others to please not take teddyrob's advice without doing proper research.

EXLINK

10 years ? well you will know that nothing lasts in the world of computing, you would have upgraded many many times in those 10 years for games yes? For individual games? Games like Half life, Quake, Doom, Halflife2 Doom3, Halo you name it I don't know but the ability to play games is the reason for these upgrades myself, if you are playing games that is, you may not. Gamers want to play these games at the highest settings not the lowest. we have all seen the threads what system do I need to play these at the highest settings. Well this is why my advice is always going to be the best hardware that gets the gamers using the highest settings not the lowest ones. Thus is why I have been giving the advice to gamers to buy Quad core and not dual core. Dual core has got you playing on the highest settings in the past but now it's not so sure you will be able to play on the highest settings with the same frame rates as the guys with the quad cores. Do you see where I'm coming from now. I want the guys to have the best PCs not the mediocre or just enough to do the job at a lower level.

Hope you can understand that and please don't let this drag out into insults and trying to belittle a member of the community who only wants people to get the best hardware they can to avoid disappoints in the future.

1) Regardless of how much a dual-core was beating the quad-core, its the fact that it was better which you failed numerous times to admit. I provided more benchmarks then you did in that thread as well. Incase you need to check it over: http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=26721515&tag=topics;title. And now you are switching over your arguement to GTA4 as a need to game, you realize other than this game, there is not a single game out there that does not run on a dual-core completely fine if not better than a quad-core does?

2) GTA4 is a poorly optimized game. There are many more CPU intensive games out there. If GTA4 can run perfectly fine on the 360's Xenon, a severly crippled triple-core that nearly any current dual-core can outperform no problem then why can't it run on these dual-cores? Its because while Rockstar did optimize the 360 and PS3 version to match the hardware exactly, they failed to put much effort into optimizing the PC version for current types of hardware out now. Sure, I'm not going to argue that it could be perfectly optimized, but they could've done a MUCH better job where a person probably with a Athlon X2, 4GB Ram and a 8800GT could play at max settings if they put the effort in. I mean, look at Valve who released Half-Life 2 when the 6800 and X800 series just came out. With those cards you could nearly max out that brand new engine.

3) Have I upgraded numerous times and built brand new system over those 10 years? Yes. Have I ever upgraded my entire system for a single game? No. Sorry but thats ridiculous to spend such a large amount of money to play a single game when theoretically I could gain better performance for a cheaper price later down the road when most games are starting to run sluggishly on my system. ALSO, no where in the thread did the TC say that he was specifically upgrading for GTA4 or Alan Wake so I have no idea why you brought those up and started talking about these games and why you "need" a Quad-Core. Sure, Alan Wake was created to perform best on a Quad-Core but quess what? Crysis was created to perform best on an 8800 GTX/Quad-Core and guess what? Video cards that were less performing than it also ran it just fine at high settings and dual-core CPU's also run it just fine.

I'm sorry, but with your research and "knowledge" I wouldn't want people to take your advice for what is the best PC because you're leading them the wrong way and going against what most tech enthusiast actually recommend. Right now, Quad-Core's make little sense to get at the pricers they are selling for when a cheaper dual-core can outperform them in most games. I would rather have a cheaper dual-core that performs better in almost all games than a more expensive quad-core that performs better in one or two games and worse in the rest. When Quad-Core matters, the prices will be much lower and the performance will be better than a dual-core even when using only two cores. Thats when it will make sense to purchase one; so please stop your quad-core fanboyism and actually look outside the box and recommend what people really need. I'm done arguing with someone with blinders on.

Its not like your playing games at 800x600 resolution or anything so no upgrading your CPU is a terrible idea. I'd be more worried about your GPU if anything else

just noticed 315*9 multiplier is the 2.83ghz stock, ya think ill have to up voltage and stuff if i put it upto 334*9 for 3.06Ghz? im sure i wont need to change much but the fsb and maybe up my ram volts to 1.85 from 1.80 spec.jamesfffan

dont take this as me pushing you into buying a quad, that's not what i mean to do at all, i think that the Q9550 is much better than what you have now, but i dont think it's worht it to upgrade if your only gaming, i agree with the others that you should upgrade your gpu first, but i'm saying, if you're going to get a quad core anyways, get the Q9550

and I dont think you'll need to up the voltage, i got 3.8Ghz at stock voltages with my e8400, it has the same multiplier, you should be just fine, it will be powerful, and i would say definately try overclocking, it's always beneficial to get a little bit more than what you payed for, i would say get it to at least 3.0ghz or 3.2Ghz, for me, i'm going for 4 Ghz :D

1) Regardless of how much a dual-core was beating the quad-core, its the fact that it was better which you failed numerous times to admit. I provided more benchmarks then you did in that thread as well. Incase you need to check it over: http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=26721515&tag=topics;title. And now you are switching over your arguement to GTA4 as a need to game, you realize other than this game, there is not a single game out there that does not run on a dual-core completely fine if not better than a quad-core does?

2) GTA4 is a poorly optimized game. There are many more CPU intensive games out there. If GTA4 can run perfectly fine on the 360's Xenon, a severly crippled triple-core that nearly any current dual-core can outperform no problem then why can't it run on these dual-cores? Its because while Rockstar did optimize the 360 and PS3 version to match the hardware exactly, they failed to put much effort into optimizing the PC version for current types of hardware out now. Sure, I'm not going to argue that it could be perfectly optimized, but they could've done a MUCH better job where a person probably with a Athlon X2, 4GB Ram and a 8800GT could play at max settings if they put the effort in. I mean, look at Valve who released Half-Life 2 when the 6800 and X800 series just came out. With those cards you could nearly max out that brand new engine.

3) Have I upgraded numerous times and built brand new system over those 10 years? Yes. Have I ever upgraded my entire system for a single game? No. Sorry but thats ridiculous to spend such a large amount of money to play a single game when theoretically I could gain better performance for a cheaper price later down the road when most games are starting to run sluggishly on my system. ALSO, no where in the thread did the TC say that he was specifically upgrading for GTA4 or Alan Wake so I have no idea why you brought those up and started talking about these games and why you "need" a Quad-Core. Sure, Alan Wake was created to perform best on a Quad-Core but quess what? Crysis was created to perform best on an 8800 GTX/Quad-Core and guess what? Video cards that were less performing than it also ran it just fine at high settings and dual-core CPU's also run it just fine.

I'm sorry, but with your research and "knowledge" I wouldn't want people to take your advice for what is the best PC because you're leading them the wrong way and going against what most tech enthusiast actually recommend. Right now, Quad-Core's make little sense to get at the pricers they are selling for when a cheaper dual-core can outperform them in most games. I would rather have a cheaper dual-core that performs better in almost all games than a more expensive quad-core that performs better in one or two games and worse in the rest. When Quad-Core matters, the prices will be much lower and the performance will be better than a dual-core even when using only two cores. Thats when it will make sense to purchase one; so please stop your quad-core fanboyism and actually look outside the box and recommend what people really need. I'm done arguing with someone with blinders on.

EXLINK

Xbox360 games maybe cool but it's not PC. Get some PC knowledge behind you before you way in.

Dual core is not the way now, It's plain for most to see that now. Sorry you want to be stuck in the past but muliticores are the way technology is not going the MHz race that is long over. It's the core race now.

@wolfdogelite, i see you got urs to 4.1ghz, grats. and yeah ill just update my gpu after xmas, then buy the cpu later you recommended, and o/c to what i think is enough (3.6ghz sweet spot, has a ring to it) :),

and guys arguing about dual core and quad-core, its not that bigger deal!, its just a matter of choice, and from what ive seen in many benches games like quads, but a fast dual core being cheaper is just as good currently so quit whining!

other thing is my ram in my sig is not XMP compatible, but will it reach the 1600mhz, as my cpu fsb will push it to that correct? its the normal platinum series

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MY-092-OC&groupid=701&catid=8&subcat=923&name=OCZ%202GB%20DDR3%20PC3-10666C7%201333MHz%20Platinum%20(2x1GB)%20Dual%20Channel%20DDR3%20(OCZ3P13332GK)

or could i just operate it at say 1466mhz ram speed and keep the 7-7-7-20 timings