What memory for a new q6600 build?

frankienyc123

Distinguished
Sep 14, 2006
207
0
18,680
0
Im putting together a new system using a Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3p and a Q6600. Im having a bit of trouble picking out memory for the system, there are so many choices right now and the prices are so low!! Id like to go with 2x1gig of PC6400 with good timings, ill be runing XP for now so I may pick up an extra pair of 1gig sticks so im ready for the switch to Vista in the future. What memory do you guys reccomend, I will be doing some mild overclocking to around 3ghz. Thanks
 

bullaRh

Distinguished
Oct 6, 2006
592
0
18,980
0
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMwNiwzLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA== there u go. and i trust it and people in here who played with c2d and quad also.

''When we disabled two of the cores and were left with a dual-core CPU we found performance to suffer greatly. We had to lower the resolution to 1280x1204 and lower most quality settings. We had to turn the fidelity down to “medium” which decreased the rendering quality of the entire game.''

dont tell me twice the cpu power is useless.

yes we do know alot of things about crysis. it will support multi cores and with more cores higher fps and probably higher details.
 

Hatman

Distinguished
Aug 8, 2004
2,024
0
19,780
0
I cant see why mroe isnt better in this case, Ive heard from most people that supreme commander has 4core capability to increase prformance.
 

bullaRh

Distinguished
Oct 6, 2006
592
0
18,980
0
maybe u should see what people in HERE says about the game and it plays much smoother with a quad than a dual, and yes supreme commander benefits from a quad.

''And I actually thought you were smart.. Higher detail only comes from the GPU and so do higher FPS. You know nothing of computers. ''
tell me why penryn gives 40 more fps in hl2 then.. u just said it didnt.

more fps = you can decide to put more details on

i never said it requires it.. i said it would benefit from it. and so will future games. but its clearly u disagree with me, we will see in 6 months time.

and oh have you seen the game alan wake? what it does with multi cores? i guess not.
 

darkstar782

Distinguished
Dec 24, 2005
1,375
0
19,280
0
Supreme commander DEFINATELY benefits from multiple cores.

It was designed to be multi threaded from the start, and if you set its affinity to a single core you will notice a SIGNIFICANT slowdown over dual cores.
 

cb62fcni

Distinguished
Jul 15, 2006
921
0
18,980
0
This is a great buy, I've had very good results from these:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231065

Don't listen to the hype, a quad core is a great processor, the price is rapidly dropping on them, and future games will be increasinly multi-threaded. If you plan on holding onto this computer for a while, a quad just makes sense. Valve's Source engine is a great example of this, they are splitting various processor-intensive portions of the engine (3D sound, physics, AI, etc) into their own separate threads. So guess what, if you crank the detail up, it definately DOES impact your FPS if you have fewer cores, especially with physics effects.
 

frankienyc123

Distinguished
Sep 14, 2006
207
0
18,680
0
First off Track, the motherboard Im getting is a p35 board hense the name "GA-P35". Second I passed up the 680 sli because sli is a waste of money for me. And third most of the apps im going to be running is either CAD/CAM software for work or A/V encoding and editing, most of which are multithreaded so I dont see why I wouldnt want a quad core? Performance in games are of little importance to me, my trusty AIW800xl still serves me fine for the little gaming I do. Im more worried that if I use a workstation class video card in this new build, will I still be able to play the ocasional game at decent frame rates, my expereince has been that the FireGL and Quadro cards dont do games very well. But anywaysm ive done plenty of research on cpus and since Barcelona isnt here yet, Im going with the q6600. Im just looking for some advice on memory, there are so many choices its hard to make a descision. Ive always liked OCZ and Crucial so I was thinking of one of these
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227185
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227231
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820146565

What do you guys think?
 

Wonderwill

Distinguished
Sep 28, 2006
558
0
18,990
1
Another person who wants to buy a P965 board.. What is your excuse for passing up 680i SLi and P35?

And why Q6600? They are only useful for professional video rendering programs.

Which RAM to buy? These of course - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231065
What makes you think he won't be editing video??? I game pretty heavily and edit tons of video for a living! LOL actually I only got paid for it once so far. :lol:
 

Wonderwill

Distinguished
Sep 28, 2006
558
0
18,990
1
Another person who wants to buy a P965 board.. What is your excuse for passing up 680i SLi and P35?

And why Q6600? They are only useful for professional video rendering programs.

Which RAM to buy? These of course - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231065
What makes you think he won't be editing video??? I game pretty heavily and edit tons of video for a living! LOL actually I only got paid for it once so far. :lol:

Dude, try using ur head for once.. no offense.

Video editing is not like video games where u absolutely must have the best performance. If ur video is rendered in 20 minutes or 10 minutes, there is no difference.

And I very rarely edit videos.

Anyway, did he even state what he would be doing with this build? I think a Q6600 would be awesome for just about anything.

BTW time is a major issue when rendering. When I have a deadline of a week to finish editing over 2 hours of video into a 30 minute film, I don't want to waste time watching the timeline bar slowly crawl across the screen. And when adding special effects and rendering several different projects at once, it can get pretty slow.
 

bullaRh

Distinguished
Oct 6, 2006
592
0
18,980
0
For many of the people who do alot of rendering every day it will make a great difference.
yorkfield will be a beast when it comes to that.

btw Track dont you have some explaining to do?
 

yakyb

Distinguished
Jun 14, 2006
531
0
18,980
0
btw Track dont you have some explaining to do?
And what do u want me to explain to you now?


Track your full of Sh!t, i read your post in the other thread. this time its even worse the OP didnt even make a single mention of 965 and you jumped on him then you jump on him for getting a quad when later he explains he needs it for Cad/Cam work.

im going to buy a quad soon are you going to tell me that i dont need it either without having a clue what i will use it for.
 

MooseMuffin

Distinguished
Oct 31, 2006
149
0
18,690
1
I'm also buying a quad core. I generally only update my hardware once every few years and its clearly the more forward looking choice. Software is only going to become more and more multi-threaded as time goes on and the extra cores will continue to increase in usefulness.
 

Hatman

Distinguished
Aug 8, 2004
2,024
0
19,780
0
Getting a Q6600 cant possibly be any worse than getting a e6600 because they are basically 2 of those.

And after july its cheap enough to not care.
 

clue69less

Splendid
Mar 2, 2006
3,622
0
22,780
0
Video editing is not like video games where u absolutely must have the best performance. If ur video is rendered in 20 minutes or 10 minutes, there is no difference.
That is a crazy conclusion. In the first place, having renders take over a half hour or an hour even for a fast dual core is not uncommon. Many a professional would love to cut their render times in half.

Dude, try using ur head for once.. no offense.
Ahem...

And I very rarely edit videos.
Obviously...
 

Hatman

Distinguished
Aug 8, 2004
2,024
0
19,780
0
Generally 50fps or 100fps makes no difference either doesn't stop the high end gamers spending thousands though does it.

Personally id rate time higher than graphics.
 

DarkTide

Distinguished
Dec 5, 2006
55
0
18,630
0
At $266 who F$%&ing cares if it's over kill right now? Games are starting to move towards multi core, it's gonna be the norm eventually. I don't think anyone could call the q6600 a bad purchase at $266.
 

cb62fcni

Distinguished
Jul 15, 2006
921
0
18,980
0
Well, if there was an 8-core processor that outperformed it for, say, 200, then it would be a bad purchase at 266.

I personally think that cores will be the new Ghz race. They'll be super-beneficial at first, and then once a certain point is reached it won't matter as much. My .02. The q66 is still a great buy.
 

htoonthura

Distinguished
May 21, 2006
653
0
18,980
0
First off Track, the motherboard Im getting is a p35 board hense the name "GA-P35". Second I passed up the 680 sli because sli is a waste of money for me. And third most of the apps im going to be running is either CAD/CAM software for work or A/V encoding and editing, most of which are multithreaded so I dont see why I wouldnt want a quad core? Performance in games are of little importance to me, my trusty AIW800xl still serves me fine for the little gaming I do. Im more worried that if I use a workstation class video card in this new build, will I still be able to play the ocasional game at decent frame rates, my expereince has been that the FireGL and Quadro cards dont do games very well. But anywaysm ive done plenty of research on cpus and since Barcelona isnt here yet, Im going with the q6600. Im just looking for some advice on memory, there are so many choices its hard to make a descision. Ive always liked OCZ and Crucial so I was thinking of one of these
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227185
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227231
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820146565




What do you guys think?


go with the one that gigabyte recommends.
 

PJ101

Distinguished
Mar 5, 2006
159
0
18,680
0
Track how could you not reccomend a quad core right now... that is what the industry is moving towards. And I do readily believe that quad core helps with minimun frame rates more than the upper end as displayed by hardocp's review with supreme comander. And honestly.... a difference of 10 fps min to ~20 fps min is huge.
 

clue69less

Splendid
Mar 2, 2006
3,622
0
22,780
0
Try not to be rude, will ya?
This coming from the guy that earlier in this very thread said:

"Dude, try using ur head for once.. no offense."

I suppose that you think that the "no offense" forgives your rudeness? Try following your own advice.

Look at what u just said. "Many PROFESSIONALS..."
Yes, professional video editors would probably like a quad-core.
Anyone else, probably not.
How about people that have digital audio workstations in their homes? Many of them are running 2x2 cores on Macs and I know a guy that has a 2x4 core Mac in his basement. Cubase is optimized for 8 cores, so there you go. In fact, my interest in quads derives from the need to upgrade from the dual core DAW rig I have now. Speed isn't really an issue but the number of simultaneous tracks and plug-ins is. But I'm not a pro audio guy and this is being done in our family room so I guess this is just another anecdote that refutes the "if gamers don't need it, nobody does" attitude.
 

Similar threads


TRENDING THREADS