The Ultimate Dream Computer

45nm quad > 65nm quad at the same speed. Granted, they may be a little more finicky, but you can basically get a 9450 to 3.4 stock voltage, I defy anyone to pull that off with a 6600.

 

If they are both at 3.4Ghz, it doesn't matter. You should know that. The speed is the same. I'm not saying my processor is better, but he could overclock his more.

 

If you're going to be pedantic about performance, it does/b] matter, because his CPU at 3.4Ghz is faster than your CPU at 3.4Ghz, and by quite a sizeable margin too.

 

No it isn't. It doesn't work like that. Please, post links.

The only thing I can see on the web is 6-7%, and that is with different types (xeon/wolfdale) at the same speed.

 

http://techgage.com/article/intel_core_2_extreme_qx9650_-_the_45nm_era_begins/7

 

the penryns clock for clock are about 10% faster than the 65nm quads.

and DDR3 is quad pumped, take the OCs, if you put your FBS to 400, you WILL need 1600 if you have a 1:1 (non effective) ratio between ram and FBS using DDR3,

yes it has a higher latency, but then DDR1 had very low latencies of 2, vs the lows of 4 for DDR2, and you really cant get 4 at 1066, it will have to be 5.


look in the end, grandtheft, if you were celver you wouldnt touch DDR3 till nehalem, and even more stupidity was to get a 790i chipset board, instead of an X48, BUT if it works, then what am i to put in my OPINION.

 

5.5%-7% gains. Fair enough. DDR2 1066 is not better than DDR3 1600 however.

 

It's not better, but it's not worse. It's different...

 

It worse performance wise, better price wise.

 

the 1600mhz DDR3 scores about 10% lower than 1066mhz DDR2 in PerformanceTest. I therefore deem it worse, performance and cost wise...

 

Link?

Here mine:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/memory/display/ddr3-1600_9.html

 

yeah at 3.4GHz i'm really not pushing it that much I'm sure 3.6GHz or even 3.8GHz wouldn't be a problem with this system/mobo and BTW the biggest difference between our CPUs is the 12MB L2 Cache with the Q9450 which leads to amazing encoding times with DVD Rebuilder (7.5 gig file encodes in about 30 mins lets see your Q6600 do that lol)

 

Yes your processor is better, and you should OC it more. But I am not sure what this DVD rebuilder does, but I can make a xvid with 5.1 to a dual layer DVD in 13 minutes with ConvertXtoDVD?

 

An 800MB XVID? His file is 7.5GB. Those take longer because they preserve quality.

 

Whoops, yeah I was talking decoding. But ripping a DVD from my comp to 7.5GB taking 30mins, I'll have to dl that program and try it out tonight.

 

Should stil only take 32-35 minutes with your Q6600 at that speed.

As for the RAM test, it was over at benchmark reviews dot com, I'll let you find it, I'm in the process of installing Vista & all the related riff-raff on my desktop at the moment, so am quite busy...

 

Yeah but that's 2-5 minutes I could be 'studying' if you know what I mean.

What's that? You don't know what I mean? Oh well, I never was good at these things...

 

:O

Um... maybe 'Parental Guidance' that post before the SWAT mods storm in?

 

lol Maybe. I don't know, they talk about that stuff all the time. The 'elders' in this forum. So I figured I was fine.

 

Can't find it. I did find this however from your site, http://www.digit-life.com/articles3/cpu/ddr2-800-vs-ddr3-1333.html, it is DDR2-800 v.s. DDR3-1333, and again the DDR3 prevails.

From everything I've found, the DDR3-1600 is still better than the DDR2-1067. I have tighter timings (stock) than the DDR3 they are testing in most cases too.