It is much faster to use the processing cores of a GPU for a task, if you can use them in unison, which is the whole point of CUDA. DirectX10.1 and DirectX11 are completely different. DirectX10.1 is the same as DirectX10 but with better performance. DirectX11 is a completely new design, it does not provide better performance, but it allows new features to be used. Not only does it allow for better graphics to be used in games, it also implements new code that allows GPUs from any manufacturer, not just nvidia with CUDA, to run code in the same way that CUDA does.
Not really. DX11 is slower than DX10.1 at the expense of better graphics. It is also worth noting that at least presently (though this may change with newer drivers) DirectX10.1 graphics cards (i.e. the HD4800 series) provide better performance in DirectX10.1 titles than DirectX11 graphics cards (i.e. the HD5800 series) will, for the same power.
My first baby steps at OC'ing this build has been to OC the 333 MHz bus clock to 400 MHz. With a 9.5 multiplier, this keeps the Q9650 running steadily at 3.8 GHz and the memory at exactly 1600 MHz at its rated 1.65v. With all cores at 100% 24/7, CPU temps have stayed in the green at 34DT with I believe is between 65C-70C--this is roughly a 5C increase from prior to OC. I do have one question regarding memory specs before I try to OC it any further. My current DDR3 sticks have latency specs of 8-8-8-24. CORSAIR DOMINATOR 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model CMD4GX3M2A1600C8 I have seen numerous DDR2 sticks with latencies as low as 3-3-3-5. It doesn't seem intuitive to me that the supposedly faster DDR3 sticks would have what appear to be relatively slow latency times. Can someone briefly summarize why this is and why the numbers seem contradictory to me? Thanks. Dick
The Q9650 has a 9x multiplier, not 9.5, so you're actually at 3.6Ghz. DDR3 memory has high latencies because the actual memory chips themselves are no faster than even old DDR1, memory technology has not progressed at all in the last few years. The only change is the speed at which the memory interfaces with the CPU. High memory clock speed is a good thing as it allows for higher bandwidth, but because the limitation is the memory chips themselves, a job can only be completed so fast. Old PC3200 DDR1 (400mhz) can do a job in just 2 clock cycles (CAS2), which is 5ns. PC6400 DDR2 (800mhz) can do a job in 4, and PC8500 (1066mhz) in 5 - this is 5ns and 4.7ns. PC13333 DDR3 (1600mhz) can do a job in 8, which again, is 5ns.
So what, exactly, is the advantage to having the fast DDR3 memory if the end result (if I understand you correctly) is the same as using slower DDR1 or DDR2 memory? I'm seeing DDR3 memory with over 2100MHz speeds. Why?? Dick
With all due respect, Sam, it is correct. There is a BIOS performance setting called "Half Ratio Multiplier" that when Enabled, adds 0.5 to whatever the Processor Multiplier is set to. The BIOS calculation of Processor Speed and System Bus Speed all agree with 3.8 GHz and 1600 MHz. The BIOS also agrees that the processor is a Q9650, not a QX9650. I have some very fuzzy cellphone photos of the BIOS screen if you don't believe what I am saying. Dick
Perhaps that's a bizarre feature that your intel board has, but I assure you, 99% of cases, that's not the case. The 0.5X fine tune multiplier only allows subtraction, not addition. Run CPUZ, I'm curious.
CPU-Z reports 9.0 @ 3.6 GHz. So is Intel resorting to some marketing slight-of-hand or is CPU-Z missing something? Dick
...or could there be a bug in the Intel BIOS calculation routines that mistakenly add the 0.5 multiplier in all their calculations, without realizing that the processor itself never went there!? Dick
The intel program is bugged I expect. The +0.5x does not work unless you have a CPU with an unlocked multiplier, i.e. a QX (9650 or 9770). CPUZ is almost always spot on with CPU speed.
OK. I have reported the bug to Intel where I am sure it will be ignored, but at least I have done my citizenly duty to report it. One would hope that a manufacturer's software designed for that manufacturer's hardware would provide accurate reports. ::sigh:: Oh, well, I shall stop bragging about my 3.8 GHz build. Thanks for putting me straight. Dick
As a final postscript to this thread, I decided to return all board settings to default for the long-term. After running OC'ed for a week, a started to get a bit concerned with the continual aroma of hot PCB in the room (even though all temp sensors were happy). On the Intel desktop console I selected "Default" and rebooted the board. It came back up reporting 3.16 GHz and still reporting a 9.5 multiplier. Apparently the "Half-Ratio Multiplier" defaults On, thus resulting in a defaulted bus speed of 3.16 GHz. I turned the Half-Ratio Multiplier off and everything went back to 3.0 GHZ (which is what both the board and processor are spec'ed at). It looks like a simple bug in the very latest and greatest BIOS for this board where the BIOS tells the processor to operate at 9.5 and the processor looks back like my dog does when I tell it to fix dinner: "Say what??" Thanks for the help, Sam. Arguing a point is always a good way to learn, even if your point is wrong. I learned a lot. Dick
No worries, don't think of it as arguing, you weren't to know really, it's confusing when programs do things like that.
