yorkfields need to clock 3.7++ghz 24/7 or it's not worth getting; mayaswell get q6600 for anything less.
just need to wave a magic wand over an intel mobo chipset ot achieve magical 500fsb for yf. :/
Printable View
yorkfields need to clock 3.7++ghz 24/7 or it's not worth getting; mayaswell get q6600 for anything less.
just need to wave a magic wand over an intel mobo chipset ot achieve magical 500fsb for yf. :/
I was going to reply to earlier but got side tracked. He's say that with a low multiplier, you hit the FSB wall earlier. I pegged as some big Intel Fan even after complain that Intel is doing nothing but selling lower base speed processors already overclocked.:down: With less FSB headroom and a lower multiplier it takes more to overclock them since they are essentially already overclocked.Quote:
Originally Posted by BullGod
So without sounding and like an equally crazy AMD Fanboy, here's the problem I have with this.
Processor, Group A.
7 X 266.7 = 1.86GHz
7.5 X 266.7 = 2GHz
8 X 266.7 = 2.1GHz
All very cheap and fairly good overclockers that will easily overclock to 333.3 (1333.3 effective) easily. Even Noobs, us and Intel knows this. Many will do 333.3 without a voltage hike!
Processor, Group B.
7 X 333.3 = 2.3GHz
7.5 X 333.3 = 2.5GHz
8 X 333.3 = 2.66GHz
Almost the same processors with some upgrades but is that worth the extra costs.:rolleyes: The only real things it has going for it is more optimizations and larger cache(courts are out on how much it helps). I'd much rather buy an older G0 Q/6600 or keep my Current E6600. Even better, wait for Nahelem like AMD fans waited for Phenom;)
I hope you are not insinuating Nehalem will flop like Phenom. :eek: ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
I'm still waiting on the replacement for the Allendales :)
Roll on 3mb of Cache! :D
Yeah, the E7xxx chips look pretty temping, the 3MB cache shouldn't affect performance too much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kai Robinson
I'm still putting the squeeze on my e6300! These things truly are beastly... ran it 100% OC on air for about 9 months, been the same on water for a few more now. Sadly the chiller didn't open it up much... but still stellar chips.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kai Robinson
No, Not at all. I'm saying just the opposite and that Nahalem will be well worth waiting on. IMHO, it will Rawk!Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon84
IMHO, wayyyyy too many folks are cheering on IMC when the Core improvements will be the best thing going for it. I don't think FSB is the big draw back some folks say it is. I say that mainly for Single Socket Desktop systems, not multi socket servers where CSI/QP is really needed.
This time new motherboards will be welcomed as well.
guys i was just wondering...the Q9450 & the X3350 seems to have the same specs...what would be the advantage of getting a quad over a xeon or vice versa?
TIA :)
take whatever you can get. its the same shi#
I was hoping for more info on the E5xxx as i think my E4300 is about to top out at 3.2Ghz...either that or i need a new motherboard!
anybody got a retail of the Q9450 already?
There is now a thread about X3350 (Q9450 equivalence) right here. And with some... initial OC results as well. You don't need crazy voltages... but apparently, you'll need... something else.
Sweet but 8400 still tops my list!Quote:
Originally Posted by adamsleath
What about E5200?
Basics: 2.5 ghz, 45nm, 800MHz, L2 Cache 2MB, TDP 65W - ratio 12.5 ?
Aint it nice? With a price of 85$ and from specs it can easy do 4+ ghz
e5200 vs e7200 vs e8400 , all @ 3.8ghz, do some real world benches. I"d love to see the difference. If there's not much, i might have to build a microATX computer just b/c! :D :up: