The Official PC building thread -3rd Edition

that's easy, the dual core will OC easier than the quads but lets talk performance. clock speed isn't everything. my stock Q9450 at 2.66ghz will tear up the stock E8600 at 3.33ghz in benchys and quad core applications and currently running at 3.55ghz (I've had it over 3.6ghz), it's not a bad OC'er either. my vote goes to the Q9550 and its 12M L2 cache. it all depends what you're going to do with it.

my benchies with my Q9450 at 3.55ghz are nearly double that of robs E8400 at 4.0ghz. no disrespect rob, merely making my case.

 

If you are talking about which can reach the highest clock frequency, I think both the Kentsfield and the Wolfdale have the edge there, but from a performance standpoint the Yorkfield will eat both their lunches! I'm firmly in the corner of performance ie: how much actual work it can do! CPU speed is meaningless to me! It's strictly bragging rights!

Russ

 

@ikknight

if you're going to game exclusively go for the E8600 Less power (idle & load), less heat and generally performs better (hardly noticeable unless you overclock it for real)A quad core chip will produce twice the heat of a dual core chip.If you plan on encoding (video, audio), rendering, etc, go for the QUAD as you will make good use of the extra cores.
No game makes noticeable usage of a quad-core. Dead easy to check with task manager...

 

Actually, that's not true at all Will, I tested it, and was surprised by the results - several games get monumental performance boosts from an E4300 to a Q6600 at the same speed.

 

i completely agree. not offended Mort. anyone that would think otherwise dont know much.. even in my limited experience i can see and know the difference in the 2 comparisons. its only logical. 2cores VS 4 cores. do the math..lol i want the E8600 but for the price of it right now i can get the a Q6700 and a few bucks more the Q9450.

COMPARE

when i do decide to get another CPU if there are programs that I use that will use all 4 cores i will go that way. but my OC'd E8400 will run circles around a quad doing DUAL CORE APPS.

 

And that goes for games too, on high settings, Crysis will always lag on a dual core, no matter how powerful the GPU is. You need a quad to have the option to get it running smoothly.

 

Mort

LOL guess i did go over board with the running circles thing.. but you got my point..lol

now this is asking you you had the X3110(E8400) and now a quad.

there is limited programs/software/games that use all the resources of a quad right now. do you have any that do?is so do ya mind me asking what they are? and how often do you use any of the QUAD apps??

this is just for me.i honestly don't know what uses a quad and what don't. other than hanks encoder... which haven DVD-rebuilder and the ability to have a movie done in 45 mins and less using hanks if i had a quad...
thats the only reason i cant see getting one right now as i don't have anything to make use of the other 2 cores. granted the L2 cache is twice of what i have so that is nice...

am i making any sense here or am i just babbling along?

 

rob,

the only software that I personally use now that can utilize all 4 cores is hc encoder by hanks. I use best quality settings and if I use CCE SP, I do three passes but CCE with 2 passes is still the fastest. hc encoder on high quality is not far behind though, so I have gone to using it exclusively with DVD-RB.

hc encoder with a dual core cpu is not even in the ballpark. much slower than cce.

 

sam when i get my 4870, we shall see if on crysis, its the Q6600 or the faster E8600 that makes it run better.

CF and SLI need alot of CPU over head, so i think the Quad only helped there, but with a single GPU card, it may well be different.

how much CPU usage do you get in each core when running crysis or COD4?

 

Is there any difference in performance in having 4x1GB ram sticks rather than 2x2GB sticks? Other than not being able to add more, is there any other disadvantage in 4x1GB??

 

ive been really thinking about this, this morning.i want the E0 stepping not as much as the C2D or C2Q. is the Q9450 E0 or do you need to be looking at the newest Q9650? if so i know i wont be looking to get one of them anytime soon.

there is no real way to know if it is the E0 stepping unless have it in hand.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...2E16819115130,N82E16819115041,N82E16819115042

 

if your overclocking yes there is a dissadvantage to haven 4x1gb sticks. it is harder to overclock with all 4 slots filled. its better to have 2x2gb sticks.

 

Are you talking about overclocking the RAM or the CPU?

 

the CPU. as you know when you OC the CPU it also OC's the Ram as well. you can adjust it (the Ram) to closest to its stock settings but there will be some sort of OCing going on.

i think Sam has run into this ith OCing his Q6600 and haven 4x1gb sticks

 

Hey Guys,
No one ever answered my question! Is it all right to flip my hard drive over so the controller side is facing up. It's the only way I can get any really decent airflow over the heat sink side of the hard drive. The way it is now, there's a 4-6 degree difference in temperatures between the two drives. If I set them side by side on the desktop and run the computer, the temps are the same. I've never come across one mounted upside down, so that's why I'm asking.

Thanking you in Advance,
Russ

 

Thanks creaky! I know back in the old days some drives were not able to be flipped over. The problem is the amount of space between drives in the drive bays. I can only get the upper drive to cool well if I leave an empty bay in between them as there's just not enough air space in between them if I put them in in adjacent bays. Leaving an empty bay in between them causes the lower drive to run hotter because the 80mm front fan doesn't get enough air to the bottom of the drive where it's needed I love my CM Cavalier case, but the 80mm fan that blows air over the drives is a minus. If you install 3 drives, it's even worse. I figure if I flip the bottom drive over, the bottom one should cool as well as the top one does as you are effectively creating a wind tunnel between the two drives.

Thanks again,
Russ

 

I also agree they run upside down and sideways, much like a cd/dvd-rom does. But I dont believe its optimal and common sense tells me it could reduce the lifespan of the device. Then again I have no facts, and my sense isnt always common...