I've had good luck with 406. With 219 I was able to get into Windows long enough to get screen capture of 3.92 GHz CPU-Z. Then things got slower as I tried to get stable, replaced the TIM under the NB heatsink, dealt with one or both monitors going black or pink or orange. I know one of my RAM sticks is weak, I can't boot with either one in a white slot, in a blue slot one stick will freeze at Windows start sound and one will get completely into windows. Last few weeks I've run at 3.5 GHz and RAM at 1051Mhz. 403 seemed to run worse so went back to 219. Installed 406 a week or so ago and right now I'm at 3.8 GHz and RAM's running at 1141 MHz. I'm not Prime stable, core #2 keeps falling out.
I built this machine with a purpose. I work where they use and teach CAD/CAM programs like Catia and Solidworks. I use a machining app called Mastercam X2 and they have a very good forum site where there is a thread on benchmarking one of the very large sample files that comes with MC. A year ago I held the record with a P5B-Dlx running a C2D 6420 OC'd to 3.5 GHz. Every so often someone would post a time 1 to 5 seconds faster than the last best time. I was in 5th place when someone posted a time 45 seconds faster going from 5 min. flat to 4 min. 15 sec. How could this be, a near 20% decrease overnight from a Dell T7400 with a slower CPU clock and RAM speed than my P5B?
Research showed me that in Mastercam the Xeon's always were better than equiv. C2D's and quads. The leader had 2 Xeon quads with a 1600Mb FSB and 12Mb cache. A friend told me how Xeon's use their cache differently. A benchmark run by a Xeon machine and similar C2Q machine with task manager running plainly showed a difference. So I built the rig in my sig. and retook the lead by 10 sec. and still have it. I have $1300 in my Rampage and the Dell guy is in second and only spent $6800 Canadian's. The real surprise was that I can run 2 instances of the benchmark simultaneously with NO DEFFERENCE in time.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks