clue69less
Splendid
- Mar 2, 2006
- 3,622
- 0
- 22,780
yes and im about to! Im just about to order theparts for my 2.13Ghz C2D system.however if you have currently got an 939, AM2 or LGA755 board with decent processors in there is little need to as you can still do thing however if you need a new computer there no point buying old technoglyas you fing your with it aging very fast.
Gary_Busey
Distinguished
- Mar 21, 2006
- 1,380
- 0
- 19,280
BTW: All of you new dual core comers, shall thank people like me
who pioneer into dual core valley, cause with out us who took
those first steps and experience dual core first-hand. We'll still
probably be using single cores.
How do you use a computer when your head is so far up your ass?
----Intro----
No simple way to say this so i'll just say this - this forum veered off topic from a discussion about short and long run impacts of intel's new line of processors to close-minded remarks such as "Oh i was first using dual processors back in the day" or "How do you use your pc with your head up your ass?". But hey - dont let me stop you - talk about that type of crap while you could be exchanging opinions and actually having a debate that would be a beneficial and a learning experience to all of us =)
----Epilogue----
First and foremost, the PC industry is a very unpredictable market. The best us consumer-level people can do is simply read the news from companies and contemplate the odds of when certain events will happen and how they will play out. Intel's Release of their new line of processors formerly known as "Conroe" and recently renamed "Core 2 Duo" upon their official release has caused a division line among opinions of many enthisiasts and professionals. I myself walk the line and simply look at the numbers. Wheather Intel or AMD really does not matter. Its simply a matter of which company is at the upper edge, and how much promise the new technology has, including things as performance increases, and most of all, future upgradeablitily. First, there are three main points that i believe are key to any technology, they are as follows:
1)What performance & reliability gains does it provide?
2)Does the technology in question have a promising future?
3)What future technologies does this development pave way for?
Now, needless to say, competition between companies, most obvious of them being PC industry giants such as Intel vs. Amd, Nvidia vs. Ati, and other issues such as at the same time of having a competition, Intel and Amd are trying to broker partnerships with other "Underlying" companies. What i mean by underlying is that it is clear to nearly everyone that Asus is the leading motherboard manufacturer. Now, Intel & Amd make motherboards - Asus makes processors - get the flow? While competing for the first place in the CPU market, both are also trying to get deals for specific motherboards for their specific CPU lines. Because, even if Intel had the best f***ing processors in the universe that were a million times faster than AMD's, it would do them any good if there were no motherboards that support them. Now, as you all know, the hardest choice in the system, the one that really decides what processor we will get is the motherboard, due to this, companies such as Asus & Gigabyte (and many others, ofcoarse), play a vital role to Intel & Amd. Video card manufacturers also play a fairly large role, but each motherboard is compatible with all videocards of its generation (aka AGP to AGP & PCIe to PCIe). Processor sockets, on the other hand, can only be chosen only for Intel or AMD, and it all boils down to one choice: Will the flagship product of the motherboard manufacturer's company be designed for Intel or AMD? Just to choose an example, I am willing to bet that ever since Asus's P5N32-SLI SE Deluxe hit the market, many AMD loyalists have converted their upgrade candidates to intel, and nearly all AMD
fans gave it a good thought.]
----The Good Part----
Now, that the basics of the PC market have been covered, let me actually cover this thread's topic. Intel or Amd? This question is controlled by three factors. One - who currently has the upper hand. Two - for how long do you estimate that advantage to last. Three - What level of upgradeability does this technology have. Now, in terms of upgradeability, I think that intel has always had the upper hand. But until recently, Amd has held the CPU market in firm control. Until Core 2 Duo arrived, that is. From the information I've been able to gather, the Core 2 Duo is only the first step in a whole new next generation of processors. Now, chunkymonster has made a good addition to this topic - without the dual CPU motherboard's, the Dual Core Processor line would have never emerged for Intel or Amd. But the Core 2 Duo is only the first step. In Step 2, the same technology will power a different, more powerful processor, it consist of four processing cores, i saw it mentioned earlier in the discussion, but im afraid i dont remember the code-name. I belive that
after Intel's most recent launch (Core 2 Duo), AMD will release their line of quad core processors, which will give them the upper edge just as they've had for the last 1-2 years. Then I believe DirectX 10 and DDR3 will come out. And just as always, intel will pioneer the technologies and incorporate them into their quad core processor which i estimate will release about 3-4 months after DX10 & DDR3 have come out. Although, if im wrong, the next most likely possibility is it will come out 4-8 months after the AMD's quad-core CPU's come out.
----The Showdown----
This is my final conclusion on the near-future Intel vs. Amd struggle. Now, Core 2 Duo is dominating. Shortly, AMD will release it's quad-core processor, and as usually will have exellent drivers and support from the beginning. Then DX10 and DDR3 will come out. Then Intel will rush a poorly-supported, but superior line of quad-core CPU's into the market which will struggle for the first 1-3 months after release until issues are resolved and motherboard compatibility arrives. Then Intel will have the upper edge for a year or so. If I had to upgrade, I would wait for Intel's Quad-Core CPU to come out, for these main reasons: that is the most likely "tide" period before the next "storm" of rapid changes in PC industry. Second, currently, the Quad-SLI of nVidia is superior by hardware, but the official drivers are not out, which is good, because from what i can tell, they're waiting to make the drivers DX10 compatible. Then DDR3 will come, and shortly after that, the Intel processor line. When that happens, the QuadSLI will be perfected, motherboards will support DDR3 fully, and my choice of time to upgrade will be when the last "next gen" component comes out - The Intel quad-core CPU. After that i am guessing that there will be a calm of one or two years, a period where the DDR3 clock frequencies will slightly keep rising, same for CPU's, and I am expecting ATI to come out with their own QuadSLI by that time.
So, in short terms - upgrade when the sh!tstorm blew over and all the next-gen stuff is properly working and is fairly aquainted with the market. (Sh!tstorm = next half a year to a year or so)
P.S. I am 14 years old and wrote this "article" to the best of my knowledge. If any of the information is inaccurate or the predictions simply ridiculous, please reply and i will correct it to the best of my ability.
AKA no smartass remarks but constructive critiscism always welcome =)
No simple way to say this so i'll just say this - this forum veered off topic from a discussion about short and long run impacts of intel's new line of processors to close-minded remarks such as "Oh i was first using dual processors back in the day" or "How do you use your pc with your head up your ass?". But hey - dont let me stop you - talk about that type of crap while you could be exchanging opinions and actually having a debate that would be a beneficial and a learning experience to all of us =)
----Epilogue----
First and foremost, the PC industry is a very unpredictable market. The best us consumer-level people can do is simply read the news from companies and contemplate the odds of when certain events will happen and how they will play out. Intel's Release of their new line of processors formerly known as "Conroe" and recently renamed "Core 2 Duo" upon their official release has caused a division line among opinions of many enthisiasts and professionals. I myself walk the line and simply look at the numbers. Wheather Intel or AMD really does not matter. Its simply a matter of which company is at the upper edge, and how much promise the new technology has, including things as performance increases, and most of all, future upgradeablitily. First, there are three main points that i believe are key to any technology, they are as follows:
1)What performance & reliability gains does it provide?
2)Does the technology in question have a promising future?
3)What future technologies does this development pave way for?
Now, needless to say, competition between companies, most obvious of them being PC industry giants such as Intel vs. Amd, Nvidia vs. Ati, and other issues such as at the same time of having a competition, Intel and Amd are trying to broker partnerships with other "Underlying" companies. What i mean by underlying is that it is clear to nearly everyone that Asus is the leading motherboard manufacturer. Now, Intel & Amd make motherboards - Asus makes processors - get the flow? While competing for the first place in the CPU market, both are also trying to get deals for specific motherboards for their specific CPU lines. Because, even if Intel had the best f***ing processors in the universe that were a million times faster than AMD's, it would do them any good if there were no motherboards that support them. Now, as you all know, the hardest choice in the system, the one that really decides what processor we will get is the motherboard, due to this, companies such as Asus & Gigabyte (and many others, ofcoarse), play a vital role to Intel & Amd. Video card manufacturers also play a fairly large role, but each motherboard is compatible with all videocards of its generation (aka AGP to AGP & PCIe to PCIe). Processor sockets, on the other hand, can only be chosen only for Intel or AMD, and it all boils down to one choice: Will the flagship product of the motherboard manufacturer's company be designed for Intel or AMD? Just to choose an example, I am willing to bet that ever since Asus's P5N32-SLI SE Deluxe hit the market, many AMD loyalists have converted their upgrade candidates to intel, and nearly all AMD
fans gave it a good thought.]
----The Good Part----
Now, that the basics of the PC market have been covered, let me actually cover this thread's topic. Intel or Amd? This question is controlled by three factors. One - who currently has the upper hand. Two - for how long do you estimate that advantage to last. Three - What level of upgradeability does this technology have. Now, in terms of upgradeability, I think that intel has always had the upper hand. But until recently, Amd has held the CPU market in firm control. Until Core 2 Duo arrived, that is. From the information I've been able to gather, the Core 2 Duo is only the first step in a whole new next generation of processors. Now, chunkymonster has made a good addition to this topic - without the dual CPU motherboard's, the Dual Core Processor line would have never emerged for Intel or Amd. But the Core 2 Duo is only the first step. In Step 2, the same technology will power a different, more powerful processor, it consist of four processing cores, i saw it mentioned earlier in the discussion, but im afraid i dont remember the code-name. I belive that
after Intel's most recent launch (Core 2 Duo), AMD will release their line of quad core processors, which will give them the upper edge just as they've had for the last 1-2 years. Then I believe DirectX 10 and DDR3 will come out. And just as always, intel will pioneer the technologies and incorporate them into their quad core processor which i estimate will release about 3-4 months after DX10 & DDR3 have come out. Although, if im wrong, the next most likely possibility is it will come out 4-8 months after the AMD's quad-core CPU's come out.
----The Showdown----
This is my final conclusion on the near-future Intel vs. Amd struggle. Now, Core 2 Duo is dominating. Shortly, AMD will release it's quad-core processor, and as usually will have exellent drivers and support from the beginning. Then DX10 and DDR3 will come out. Then Intel will rush a poorly-supported, but superior line of quad-core CPU's into the market which will struggle for the first 1-3 months after release until issues are resolved and motherboard compatibility arrives. Then Intel will have the upper edge for a year or so. If I had to upgrade, I would wait for Intel's Quad-Core CPU to come out, for these main reasons: that is the most likely "tide" period before the next "storm" of rapid changes in PC industry. Second, currently, the Quad-SLI of nVidia is superior by hardware, but the official drivers are not out, which is good, because from what i can tell, they're waiting to make the drivers DX10 compatible. Then DDR3 will come, and shortly after that, the Intel processor line. When that happens, the QuadSLI will be perfected, motherboards will support DDR3 fully, and my choice of time to upgrade will be when the last "next gen" component comes out - The Intel quad-core CPU. After that i am guessing that there will be a calm of one or two years, a period where the DDR3 clock frequencies will slightly keep rising, same for CPU's, and I am expecting ATI to come out with their own QuadSLI by that time.
So, in short terms - upgrade when the sh!tstorm blew over and all the next-gen stuff is properly working and is fairly aquainted with the market. (Sh!tstorm = next half a year to a year or so)
P.S. I am 14 years old and wrote this "article" to the best of my knowledge. If any of the information is inaccurate or the predictions simply ridiculous, please reply and i will correct it to the best of my ability.
AKA no smartass remarks but constructive critiscism always welcome =)
I'm sort of in a rush as I currently have no gaming PC and want to get back in. However I do not want to buy another mb, cpu, gpu, pwer supply system in another six months! Again in another year or two for DX10 and Vista maybe. So what is the slightly affordable way to go?
Another question: Neverwinter Nights 2 is a game on my list. Apparently its recommended specs are for a P4 at 3.0 GHz or higher. The specs make no mention of Core 2 Duo. The E6300 is 1.86 GHz. Everyone says NWN2 will play just fine on an E6300 but can I see this in writing please?
I'm going to call Obsidian (developing NWN2) and Intel to see if there is anyway...any rule of thumb...to understanding how much faster a 1.86 GHz Core 2 Duo is to a P4 3.8 Ghz CPU and how you draw the line if you only need 3.0 GHz or more.
I understand why if you shed OS and game overhead and stuff off of NWN2 and it is left to run in the second core how more efficient and fast it will be (with an ATI 1900 or nVIDIA 7950) but is it twice or three times as fast or maybe on 1.5 times as fast and actually fall short of NWN2 recommended 3.0 GHz?
Thank you.
Another question: Neverwinter Nights 2 is a game on my list. Apparently its recommended specs are for a P4 at 3.0 GHz or higher. The specs make no mention of Core 2 Duo. The E6300 is 1.86 GHz. Everyone says NWN2 will play just fine on an E6300 but can I see this in writing please?
I'm going to call Obsidian (developing NWN2) and Intel to see if there is anyway...any rule of thumb...to understanding how much faster a 1.86 GHz Core 2 Duo is to a P4 3.8 Ghz CPU and how you draw the line if you only need 3.0 GHz or more.
I understand why if you shed OS and game overhead and stuff off of NWN2 and it is left to run in the second core how more efficient and fast it will be (with an ATI 1900 or nVIDIA 7950) but is it twice or three times as fast or maybe on 1.5 times as fast and actually fall short of NWN2 recommended 3.0 GHz?
Thank you.
Rburke83187
Distinguished
- Aug 21, 2006
- 1
- 0
- 18,510
I have little knowledge about computers, but what i do know is i like them to run fast, what i am looking at purchasing is the following:
ASUS P5B Deluxe/WiFi-AP Socket T (LGA 775) Intel P965 Express ATX Intel Motherboard - Retail
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 Conroe 1066MHz FSB 4M shared L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor - Retail
CORSAIR XMS2 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM Unbuffered DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit System Memory - Retail
eVGA 01G-P2-N592-AX Geforce 7950GX2 1GB 512-bit GDDR3 PCI Express x16 Dual GPU Video Card - Retail
Thermalright XP-120 CPU Cooler
and any not too flashy case, that keeps everything roomy and cool, any suggestions, help whatsoever, reccomendations would be much much appreciated.
I currently have 2 gig ram, amd 3200+, little shuttle box, shitty mobo, 6800gt, audigy 2
ASUS P5B Deluxe/WiFi-AP Socket T (LGA 775) Intel P965 Express ATX Intel Motherboard - Retail
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 Conroe 1066MHz FSB 4M shared L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor - Retail
CORSAIR XMS2 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM Unbuffered DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit System Memory - Retail
eVGA 01G-P2-N592-AX Geforce 7950GX2 1GB 512-bit GDDR3 PCI Express x16 Dual GPU Video Card - Retail
Thermalright XP-120 CPU Cooler
and any not too flashy case, that keeps everything roomy and cool, any suggestions, help whatsoever, reccomendations would be much much appreciated.
I currently have 2 gig ram, amd 3200+, little shuttle box, shitty mobo, 6800gt, audigy 2
p8ntslinger676
Distinguished
- Dec 23, 2005
- 329
- 0
- 18,780
Im deffinatly staying with amd, mostly because i just built a rig about 7-8 months ago and there is no need to upgrade and my 4000+ @2.7GHz eats up games and im doing ok with my X850XT with the core clocked at 580mhz so I dont have the money to dump into a new system, I am waiting to see what surprises are in store for intel when amd switches to 65nm operation and pulls out a true quad core processor, i think it is kind of gay how intel just stuck two dies onto one chip and said it was quad core, that seems a little flakey to me, and the 4x4 system, but i do have to give intel props for conroe cus it is a real good core, if i were to drop some money into anything computer related right now it would be either a new water cooling setup so i could overclock more or a X2 processor for my socket 939 mobo, but im fine with single core and ill most likely go with the water cooling so i can get my processor up to and higher than 3GHz so it will further my chewing up and spitting out of games.
Retardicus
Distinguished
- Aug 21, 2006
- 49
- 0
- 18,530
Did it escape your notice that AMD was also a founding member of the TCG? No where in Intel's specs (or AMD's for that matter) do I see any mention of a TPM on the actual CPU, and I believe that this issue will be around for quite a while. Vista, for instance, will release with only a limited TPM capability, and that will have to be specifically activated by the user.
Haven't yet had the chance to see how many desktop MB manufacturers are implementating this, but I'm personally looking forward to complete implementation of this technology. Most of the servers we get at work today have the implementation enabled, to a lesser or greater degree, and we are somewhat more secure for it.
I'd love to have full implementation at home so that I'd not have to worry quite so much about malware, spyware, or the websites that I might do e-commerce with. I've personally had to have my credit card account stopped and a new card issued twice in the past 18 months. I do travel a bit, so might not be from a web site... But to lessen the risks that we all take would go a long way.
As to M$ and their blasted 'call Bill every day' implementation of WGA, that's not part of TPM.
If you're worried about TPM, keep your favourite non-tpm computer offline and don't worry about it. What no one can see won't hurt them. Pirate those DVD's... Use that pirated software... Me, I'd prefer to be a bit safer. I also feel I should pay for what I use, unless it's specifically released under a shareware or freeware license. (I love bitmeter....)
BTW, Apple's implementation will be a TPM chip on the MB.
TPM is a seperate module that connects to the ICH. Motherboards are not required to have a TPM. It is mostly used in the vPro platform. As far as I understand it, its main use case is to provide more security in the highest security ring of the CPU. Basically, that means Windows. Only "trusted software" can run in that ring. This prevents malicious code from executing in sensitive parts of the OS. It also means that only Intel and MS will have the key to sign software for use with the TPM in the highest security level. Because of this, it is unlikely that other companies will have software that requires the TPM. It is not a means of enforcing software licensing.
Apple uses the TPM chip to try and ensure that OS X will only work on their hardware. However, it's obvious it can be circumvented when used in that manner.
Anyways, if you don't like TPM for whatever reason, don't get a motherboard with the TPM chip.
WOW!!!!! never knew that so many smart people were here.
An official Intel can wait attitude has been displayed & many have admitted they are satisfied with the AMD's,,, like me. Makes you wonder..
I may still buy a core DEFINATELY NOT TODAY!!! but like many have said, only after all the issues have been resolved ,,, & thats only if AMD does not come with anything better in the next few months.
Sorry I dont need to have the absolute fastest pc ever for any reason, I'm no lamer gamer.
An official Intel can wait attitude has been displayed & many have admitted they are satisfied with the AMD's,,, like me. Makes you wonder..
I may still buy a core DEFINATELY NOT TODAY!!! but like many have said, only after all the issues have been resolved ,,, & thats only if AMD does not come with anything better in the next few months.
Sorry I dont need to have the absolute fastest pc ever for any reason, I'm no lamer gamer.
About your Neverwinter Nights 2 question. I can not give you a link but with information i supply you can make an easy descision for yourself. You see, the requirements say "Pentium 3.0GHz" That means the amount of data a Pentium type core can process while running at 3.0GHz. Now, the FX2 series is much faster than that of the Pentium, while Core 2 Duo is faster than even the FX2. So you see it is not the frequency the processor is operating at, but rather the amount of data it can process that matters. All you need to do is take a look at the CPU comparison charts on tom's hardware. And if the E6300 is not faster than the P4 3.0Ghz, even then, i have utmost confidence that due to the Core 2 Duo's line power efficency, it releases less heat, and therefore the possibility of overclocking it on air cooling is very promising. While i can not answer for sure because i havent had the time to test one out myself, looking at the specs, i'd say that this processor was built with overclocking in mind, but ofcouse it's done at your own risk. Bottom line is this: as long as you have a thermal sensor, buy the most expensive model of the Core 2 Duo you can afford on your budget, and make room for an extra 50-100 bucks for a high-end air CPU cooling system, then overclock the f***er as high as it goes. And the thermal sensor should keep you from burning the processor out. There are 2 logical selections, either one of the two lower lines of Core 2 Duo's - because they have the 2mb cache, or the X6800, because the multiplier on that one is unlocked, therefore allowing much greater overclocking capabilities. Go with either of those two choices, and dont forget, when overclocking, not having a thermal sensor on your CPU is just asking for trouble. i burn out old P1's and P2's that i find in the trash as a hobby, the highest P2 overclock i got was fairly unstable, but nontheless, it was 930MHz, which is not bad at all with air cooling. So as long as you spend an extra hundred on hi-end CPU cooling, and get a thermal sensor (if there isnt one on the mobo already), you should be fine.
And as for the motherboard, DO NOT BUY A CHEAP ONE. Spend that extra cash on one of Asus's 250-300 dollar motherboards, and you wont regret it, because first, reliability, and second, that way you can upgrade later because the mobo wont loose its compatibility...at least not anytime soon.
And as for the motherboard, DO NOT BUY A CHEAP ONE. Spend that extra cash on one of Asus's 250-300 dollar motherboards, and you wont regret it, because first, reliability, and second, that way you can upgrade later because the mobo wont loose its compatibility...at least not anytime soon.
Did it escape your notice that AMD was also a founding member of the TCG? No where in Intel's specs (or AMD's for that matter) do I see any mention of a TPM on the actual CPU, and I believe that this issue will be around for quite a while. Vista, for instance, will release with only a limited TPM capability, and that will have to be specifically activated by the user.
Haven't yet had the chance to see how many desktop MB manufacturers are implementating this, but I'm personally looking forward to complete implementation of this technology. Most of the servers we get at work today have the implementation enabled, to a lesser or greater degree, and we are somewhat more secure for it.
I'd love to have full implementation at home so that I'd not have to worry quite so much about malware, spyware, or the websites that I might do e-commerce with. I've personally had to have my credit card account stopped and a new card issued twice in the past 18 months. I do travel a bit, so might not be from a web site... But to lessen the risks that we all take would go a long way.
As to M$ and their blasted 'call Bill every day' implementation of WGA, that's not part of TPM.
If you're worried about TPM, keep your favourite non-tpm computer offline and don't worry about it. What no one can see won't hurt them. Pirate those DVD's... Use that pirated software... Me, I'd prefer to be a bit safer. I also feel I should pay for what I use, unless it's specifically released under a shareware or freeware license. (I love bitmeter....)
BTW, Apple's implementation will be a TPM chip on the MB.
TPM is a seperate module that connects to the ICH. Motherboards are not required to have a TPM. It is mostly used in the vPro platform. As far as I understand it, its main use case is to provide more security in the highest security ring of the CPU. Basically, that means Windows. Only "trusted software" can run in that ring. This prevents malicious code from executing in sensitive parts of the OS. It also means that only Intel and MS will have the key to sign software for use with the TPM in the highest security level. Because of this, it is unlikely that other companies will have software that requires the TPM. It is not a means of enforcing software licensing.
Apple uses the TPM chip to try and ensure that OS X will only work on their hardware. However, it's obvious it can be circumvented when used in that manner.
Anyways, if you don't like TPM for whatever reason, don't get a motherboard with the TPM chip.
This comes as no surprise, but as you all know, this is the same reason that hackers have been using Pentium 2 and below processors - because they're extremely hard to trace - to be honest, im not even sure if its possible at all. The principal all these companies go by is "If you want something new, take it with the security feautures or leave it". Now, as for the TPM chip, I have already devised a simple solution to override it, it is half-assed, but nontheless effective. Its common knowledge that in order to use a Core 2 Duo, you will need a new mobo, and consecutively new memory and/or videocard. Now, if you put the memory & video from your old pc onto your Core 2 Duo, either way you still have an extra mobo left. Instead of upgrading, just build a new system entirely, it will only cost about 200-300 more unless you built your rig not so long ago, in which case you shouldnt be upgrading just now. The reason we all want the Core 2 Duo (well, most of us) is for gaming. Now, games arent worth that much, so you might as well just buy them. And leave your old computer for using Illegal photoshop, downloading from bit torrent, watching ripped dvd's, and all that good stuff. things like that dont require much processing power, so you can do it on your old rig. And just build a new one exclusively for gaming. Now, while this solution is rather "primitive" (which is an understatement, XD), im sure that good old human curiosity will beat it eventually, just like the PSP firmware upgrades to prevent from running homebrew, eventually, either a crack will come out in form of a BIOS update, modified CPU or chipset drivers, or simply a DIY on how to physically open up & disable the TPM manually. All i know is sooner or later we will be able to use that stolen copy of photoshop on a core 2 duo, because, well, to say it simply, history repeats itself. For over ten years, they keep coming out with copyright protection, and we keep breaking it. Think of it as a never-ending cycle - all it takes is time =)
Congrats man. Im thinkin of building a new system this week, but i had one question. Word goes around that the QuadSLI with the two 7950GX2's isnt working fully yet because the drivers on them are in beta stage and they're not using the full capabilities of the cards. I saw the benchmarks for them, and they got slightly outperformed by dual 7800's, so heres my question: Do you guys think i should get QuadSLI and just use it as SLI until better drivers come out for them or should i just get two of those insanely overclocked 7800's with liquid cooling like they have on that monarch system that owned the benchmarks?
P.S. Anyone know how far the X6800 can be overclocked safely?
I would go for a single 7950GX2 as they are still ironing out the drivers. About the Core 2 XE I have seen like 3.4 on the stock cooler but thats about it - I've heard of around 4Ghz on liquid and no phase change results yet. I just wouldnt go past 1.35v on the core.
Retardicus
Distinguished
- Aug 21, 2006
- 49
- 0
- 18,530
There isn't a TPM on any of the consumer motherboards. So you don't have to do anything to "bypass" it.
Yeah but I have been building PCs for a long time. So I snapped it all together and fired it up no probs. I also build a 965 based rig based on the ASUS P5B and had Zero issues on the rev 1.03 board unlike a lot of other people claim. I recommend the Intel 975XBX because it is Rock Solid, you get what you pay for.
Yeah but I have been building PCs for a long time. So I snapped it all together and fired it up no probs. I also build a 965 based rig based on the ASUS P5B and had Zero issues on the rev 1.03 board unlike a lot of other people claim. I recommend the Intel 975XBX because it is Rock Solid, you get what you pay for.
Yes i can relate. I have been building PC's for five years now (since i was 8, lol). The thing is back then it was a lot more difficult, all the PCI add-ons were complicated and the principle "if it fits it works" would have gotten you a july 4th case mod (aka fireworks). But yeah, now, all there really is to it is to slap em together, put the screws in the right places and connect everything. The only real challenge is to make sure that there are no performance bottlenecks (aka a 4.0Ghz maxed out system running on a 5400rpm drive).
I think the course of action i will take is buy an SLI-compatible mobo, right now im thinking Asus P5N32-SLI SE Deluxe, install one 7950GX2 on it, and just buy one more GX2 for QuadSLI when the drivers are more developed. Then im thinking of puttin in some cash for a 10-15Gb RAMdrive for the core operating system (so the operating system loads and functions insanely fast), and im thinkin two of those 150gb 10k WD Raptors in Raid 0 for the game storage drive so the game load screens arent so long. And I already have a koolance PC-1036 case with CPU, memory & HD liquid cooling - All i'll have to do is get their 7950GX2 liquid cooling addons (like the ones that you put onto the cards instead of stock coolers, on koolance.com they're estimating the release of the cooling add-ons for the 7950's in a month or so), so that will round me at Liquid cooled CPU, GPU's (2 for the single 7950 and 4 when i get QuadSLI), Memory & LiquidCooled HD's. With that on, I'll probably overclock my memory, GPU's & CPU. Heh it would probably be a good idea to get a few extra thermal sensors along with a 5"25 bay thermal display. Doing all this will cost a pretty penny, but with all being currently top-of-the-line and overclocked, i think the system will last me at least two years.
Just one question left at this point. On a normal system, 2Gb of RAM would be enough, but for ultra-high settings on games like GWAR, Oblivionm and even Quake 4, with all those textures, should i get 2 or 4? Or just get two and if thats not enough for the latest games with QuadSLI then upgrade to 4?
emreb
Distinguished
- Aug 25, 2006
- 5
- 0
- 18,510
This should be the most nonsense answer possible!
Are you aware that time is runnin, not staying?
which means we will not stay in TODAY forever?
Infact todays buyers will most likely be using their new systems/cpu's with vista and other 64bit systems (or at least will want to be able to use).
you are currently encouraging people to buy new intels! what if these current intels lacks on 64bit? what if people will have to re-update their systems when they jump to 64bit?
will you accept responsiblity???!!!!
I think actually somebody (including you THG) for some reason with endless excuses did not showup the real power of AMD and its 64bit power which is actual power of the cpu the future!! since the first 64bit cpu, 64bit performance values has allways kept as secret, not published or not tested at all!!!
even if amd falls ehind intel on 32bit maybe people will still buy amd if amd is still better on 64bit!!!
we all know that AMD has proven it self on 64bit for a long time, what about intel :?:
Are you somehow protecting intel :?:
some of excuses:
1. there isn't any/enough 64bit prog./drivers/OS's (there were always linux from the very beginning with full 64bit capable and for a long time. there are also a lot of 64bit benchmark programs for windows too (sisoft sandra has it for a long time for instance))
2. there is not much linux user audience. (maybe but this will help people to figure out performace diffrences, will help to estimate if intel lacks on 64bit or what?)
3. Not all the benchmarks run properly on Vista... (then run as much as you can! we will not compare the results with the 32bit results anyway. why dont you try to compare 64bit performances AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE so people can see some 64bit results and make healthier decisions... :!: )
...
It is your responsiblity to show these cpu's real capablity, the future capablity :!:
Babylon_Rocker
Distinguished
- Aug 26, 2006
- 1
- 0
- 18,510
No. I built an AMD X2 4400 based system 6 months ago which will hold me for a while.
When I upgrade I like to wait until the killer chipset comes out to get the full benefit of the processor.
When I upgrade I like to wait until the killer chipset comes out to get the full benefit of the processor.
JonathanDeane
Distinguished
- Mar 28, 2006
- 1,469
- 0
- 19,310
An often over looked part of the build (people who build usualy get good mobo's but geting something special can take longer then getting a good CPU...)
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
RTX 4070 vs RX 7900 GRE faceoff: Which mainstream graphics card is better?- Started by Admin
- Replies: 56
-
Question PC (laptop) Is performing way below potential for a long time
- Started by yololife55
- Replies: 4
-
-
Question Would 32 gigs of ram really make a difference in a xeon e3 1240 v2 and gtx 970 build?- Started by jordanbuilds1
- Replies: 4
-
Question New pc build r9 7900x3d rtx 4080 super no post only ram rgb turns on- Started by Harvey Durward
- Replies: 2
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram