i agree, big typhoons would definitly helpQuote:
Originally Posted by MAS
Printable View
i agree, big typhoons would definitly helpQuote:
Originally Posted by MAS
Well, I hope to get the Tuniq one day. Xoxide ran out of stock on them. So, I need to wait.
Currently, air flow in my rackmount case is messed up due to weird mounting of Zalman 9700. But it works and that's all I need for now.
why tuniq instead of big typhoon?
edit: ok its better :)
Not only it's better. It can be installed in correct way that fan will blow air out of case rather than let it circle around (like my two 9700s are doing now).
Besides, not all cooler can be fitted on Socket 7 retention basket.
when are you getting it?
AMD FX-7x in stock in UK!!
http://www.dabs.com/productlist.aspx...147&PageMode=1
update thread plx
http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/2802/image2di2.png :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Drag
So, I decided to get two Scythe Ninja Plus REV.Bs.
Good article about OCing QuadFX with FX-70 CPUs
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/445/1/
http://www.legitreviews.com/images/r...70_highest.jpg
Enjoy!
this is what the review said on the last page
"If one wants to improve cooling then two water blocks or heat sinks will be needed, which doubles the heating or cooling bill in many situations." :D
No kidding. A decent heatsink costs 50 to 70 CAD and getting two isn't so funny on bills.Quote:
Originally Posted by msimax
Twice the cost, twice the FUN!!
:cool:
To me it looks as though the QuadFX is good as the Kentsfield. The 10% difference an Intel faNbOy might lord about really means very little. The did not clock up the FX74 in the benchmarks [Kentsfield either] ...that leaves a huge gap in the reader's comprehension of the compared rigs. I know Intel realizes the old bus they use has little in overhead left to plunder, in fact that bus disappears this year anyway far as I understand some reports I read. This will be a very interesting year for performance PCs.
Thanks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightman
$800 for RAM!!!!!! Time to invest in RAM manufacturer's stock.
So whats gona happen to the old cpus? You selling them? :x:
Uh 10% is a lot when you factor in the cost differences. You say they didn't OC the FX74... so what? K8 hits a brick wall around 3.2ghz no matter what on air from what I've seen. Kentsfield can hit 3.3-3.6 on a tuniq tower pretty easily.Quote:
The 10% difference an Intel faNbOy might lord about really means very little. The did not clock up the FX74 in the benchmarks [Kentsfield either] ...that leaves a huge gap in the reader's comprehension of the compared rigs.
The bone stock C2Q might be *only* 10% faster than a QFX rig OC'd to the max but what happens when you easily OC the C2Q rig by 25% to 3.33GHz? QFX loses by ~25% again.Quote:
Originally Posted by pplapeu
BTW, FX74 isn't going to clock any higher than the ~3.2GHz they got from FX70 anyway so there is no perceived "gap". To be fair, they should have included benches from an OC'd C2Q.
Guys QuadFX in todays form is a good platform only when running on Vista/Linux/XP x64 OS! Then performance is more similar clock for clock on both Kentsfield and FX (expect superPI and some encoding).
Till today I saw only smaller websites published scores from those NUMA aware operating systems and BIG websites like HEXUS/ANAND/etc. was using WinXP x32 where performance is poor with 4x4 (this may have something to do with sponsorship from Intel, especially HEXUS looks like that, they not lying, they simply are not showing full picture :slap: ).
Nice rig!
What type of DVD-drive with s-ata is that?
You should buy this:
http://www.thermaltake.com/product/C.../va8004swa.asp
No, thanks. I don't use tower cases and I need hot-swap capable sata II backplanes and has an ability to hold 16+ harddrives. My quadfx was not built for average usage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drag
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_quadfx/16.shtml
That page/link has the one game Quad FX excells in. One out of six or eight games benchmarked.
I flipped through the entire LostCircuits article and YOU ARE RIGHT....you have a rendering monster there that is far better than the Intel offereings.
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_quadfx/16.shtml
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightman
Thanks for link PPLAPEU! :toast:
I'm reading ....
Could you elaborate on how you concluded that QFX is a "rendering monster" and "far better than Intel's offerings" please. I can't find any evidence to support either claim in your linked review.Quote:
Originally Posted by pplapeu