Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Gear-Fi: Non-Audio Gear and Gadgets › New Computer - Spec Questions
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Computer - Spec Questions - Page 3

post #31 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by m11a1 View Post


I made a mistake of calling that FSB, yes, you're right there's only one FSB and another Bus speed. The Bus speed is no where adjustable. Whereas the FSB is, MCC obviously had those messed up.

You ****ing obviously don't understand why I mention the multiplier then, according MCC, he would have been running a 2 multiplier which is impossible for the Q6600, and how would I know that? Because I ****ing have it and I have ****ing overclocked it before. Yes, I ****ing know that is possible to have a 2 multiplier on some chips but just not on some of the newer quad cores.
not even replying to this, just hitting !!! and going to bed, because this is ridiculous (why couldn't you just accept that you were wrong, that someone might know more about it, and sit back and be spoon-fed information that some people pay hundreds to thousands of dollars for?)
post #32 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by obobskivich View Post
not even replying to this, just hitting !!! and going to bed, because this is ridiculous (why couldn't you just accept that you were wrong, that someone might know more about it, and sit back and be spoon-fed information that some people pay hundreds to thousands of dollars for?)
Sounds like you got ripped off then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by obobskivich View Post
first of all, memory size on the graphics card means zilch, its the GPU that matters, second of all, clock speed on the CPU means next to zilch, its the architectural abilities that matter (and the CE guy didn't catch this one....c'mon, you shouldn't have architecture being lectured to you from across the hall, in CS we're only supposed to make them think, not build them)
Memory size don't mean much? And either does CPU clock speed? Seems like you need to go back to more studying then.
post #33 of 65
The value of more memory is so overstated in personal computing these days. More memory only helps if you application is memory bound. Typically, it is better to go for less, but faster memory, and dual channel were available.

In terms of video memory versus GPU speed, when I went to buy a new video card I assumed 512Mb over 256Mb would be better. The reality is that there was almost no difference in performance, but about a 50% increase in cost. I chose to go with a card that had faster but less memory and a faster GPU.
post #34 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by fordgtlover View Post
The value of more memory is so overstated in personal computing these days. More memory only helps if you application is memory bound. Typically, it is better to go for less, but faster memory, and dual channel were available.

In terms of video memory versus GPU speed, when I went to buy a new video card I assumed 512Mb over 256Mb would be better. The reality is that there was almost no difference in performance, but about a 50% increase in cost. I chose to go with a card that had faster but less memory and a faster GPU.
very true, on both counts

you also must consider the limitations of the host application and OS you're working with (not everything can see beyond 2^32, and thats a very real ceiling)

oh, and just to be the fly in the ointment, triple channel
post #35 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by obobskivich View Post
oh, and just to be the fly in the ointment, triple channel
Triple channel is nice, but I doubt the OP would need more than 4GB the next 5 years. 2GB has been the standard for three years now, and while the low price is driving everybody to go 3GB or over I'd say hardly anyone will actually use that. Issues raised by fordgtlover are nice, but I doubt you are going to actually notice stuff like that.
At 2 or 3 years you'll feel the age, but it can very well be another 2 years before you'll feel the need to upgrade. I wouldn't worry about the socket of your CPU, you won't upgrade it. I would worry about RAM upgradability, as RAM types are moving a bit faster. I suggest getting what you think you might need right now: Vista and 7 will put it to good use anyway.
post #36 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by zotjen View Post
It looks like I'm going to need a new PC and a lot has changed in the five+ years since I bought my last one. I don't need a high performance/gamer machine but at the same time I want something that will have staying power. I'm currently looking at a Core 2 Quad processor but how much difference is there going from 2.33GHz to 2.5 GHz to 2.66 GHz, etc.? I'm guessing the Core i7 is more than the average person needs (at least for now).

I'm planning on starting off with 4GB of RAM and at least a 500GB hard drive. Also, can I get away with using a video card with 256mb? I know I can always upgrade it at some point if I need to. I'm planning on running Vista 64bit (at least until Windows 7 comes out).

Basically, what's considered the current standard as far as computer specs go? My goal is to aim a little bit higher than that.
4 gigs of ram is the sweetspot for a rig like that. As for the harddrive I would go with a 10,000 rpm model like the raptor unless you need lots of storage and then I would go with 1TB. The Raptor will give you the single biggest improvement in speed as compared to any other part of the machine, unless you cripple it with very little ram. You can also add a bigger drive yourself for storage, drives are so cheap now. Another way of looking at it is, making the slowest part of the machine faster is the best way to increase speed. Of course I am not talking RIP times or things of that nature but your new machine will load everything much faster and eliminate the old "stare at the screen until the program loads BS". People will tell you a 7200 is just as fast as a 10000 and I dont know why people do this, maybe the same reason they say a 500 dollar source sounds as good as a 4000 dollar source to rationalize a purchase but anyway, it will make an easy to notice increase with loading times, reading is the majority of what the average person does. 256 is plenty for your computer unless you wish to run games at a high resolution or unless you have a 30" screen and yes, you can upgrade that later if you wish. have fun getting your new machine, that is always fun.
post #37 of 65
m11a1 there's too much wrong in your posts, I am compelled to step in here to balance the universe.

There are two main types of Front Side Bus clocks in the computer:
1) Motherboard FSB (not adjustable)
2) CPU clock core FSB (adjustable)

These are the same bus.

The 1333MHz and 1066Mhz FSB are fixed clock numbers of the motherboard, it is IMPOSSIBLE to adjust them.
If that were true motherboards wouldn't be using the very opposite of that fact for marketing. Changing those clocks is essentially how overclocking is done.

But If you running 3.2GHz with a 1600MHz CPU clock core FSB, that would mean that you running a core multiplier of 2.
No, 8 * 400 = 3200. The Q6600's max (and default) multiplier is 9x. He put it down likely because it was more stable at the increased bus speed. 266 is the default bus, and he put it at 400.

That is ridiculously impossible to run anything stable at a 2 core multiplier. Especially with the Q6600, I have three of them and I how to overclock them well.
"2 core multiplier" is a phrase you've invented. You could have mentioned how you overclocked your three. By not understanding how the fsb relates to the multiplier it seems more like you didn't touch the BIOS and moved a slider bar in some software to do this.

Also, that chip technically only have 4Mb for cache and another 4Mb in second cache which isn't very efficient, but normal people can barely tell a difference.
Having two 4 MB caches is still 8 MB for it as a system to utilize. Overclocking the bus in which these two pairs of cores communicate improves things though. Perhaps AMD is more signal efficient, but Intel got the job done better. Past tense because technologically this is an older design.

Plus, I don't think you clearly understand the purpose of cache. The Motherboard FSB is far more important than cache. That is the speed that accesses the cache and the external memory (RAM)
Level 2 cache within a processor has its own speed unrelated to the bus. Typically more than 10x the speed of the system memory. When making a purchase decision FSB and cache are weighed less than operating frequency and cores.

You obviously don't know anything about overclocking, it's best you don't feed ignorant BS to people who actually need help.
It is my intent to show irony at this time.

Depending on your resolution you can get a graphics card with more memory
Actually around 1999 when 32 MB of graphics memory became more common the resolution issue ended. Laptops today with integrated graphics still only share about that much from system memory. The reason they may perform better than they seem is because of sharing with DDR2 type memory and and the advanced features supported.

If gaming, there's much more to weigh than just video memory. Video memory isn't as much of a concern as the actual technology used on the card. With better technologies higher video memory follows anyways. Based on the game being played or professional software being used, forums could answer a person's question of what video card would be best for them.

I made a mistake of calling that FSB, yes, you're right there's only one FSB and another Bus speed. The Bus speed is no where adjustable. Whereas the FSB is, MCC obviously had those messed up.
Spoken like a Best Buy employee.

You ****ing obviously don't understand why I mention the multiplier then, according MCC, he would have been running a 2 multiplier which is impossible for the Q6600, and how would I know that? Because I ****ing have it and I have ****ing overclocked it before. Yes, I ****ing know that is possible to have a 2 multiplier on some chips but just not on some of the newer quad cores.
You're not an authority on this, get over it.

Nor can I with you, you seem to have made some mistakes yourself, not to mention your attitude as well since you have this "oh **** look at me, I ****ing know everything" stubborn ****.
Because you've told everyone to shut up and listen to you. But to me who truely understands these terminologies and concepts you barely have a clue what you're talking about.

775 isn't dead yet and it won't be for a while too.
The LGA 775 platform is "dead" in a sense that Intel will no longer be releasing new processors for it. In other words it is now known that LGA 775's top processor will always be the QX9650 or Q9650/Q9550. (If you can afford QX9650, i7 920 would be a better use of money). But I fully agree with you that it will be used for quite awhile before we can start thinking of it in the term of "dead". At this point in time it's the list price that will decrease making it convenient for more people looking for a decent performance upgrade.

not even replying to this, just hitting !!! and going to bed
My guess on this is that you bragged of overclocking three of these but had not one of your own CPU-Z screen shots to post and instead found someone else's at stock.

Memory size don't mean much? And either does CPU clock speed? Seems like you need to go back to more studying then.
He had a point. There's too much to explain about it. But with newer technologies greater memory size follows anyways. When you target a specific technology you want on a video card, it's likely to have a minimum of 512 MB or 1 GB of video memory anyways. If you walk into a store wanting the most memory on a card that's the cheapest to play games with you'll end up with a lemon. Most people don't even realize this because they have no basis to judge 3d image quality of their game anyways due to ignorance. "Oh 2 GB is $400, but this 512 MB is $200. Hmm this 1 GB is $300. Here's a 256 MB for only $50. Hey, here's a 512 MB for $60, this seems like the optimum price for performance, so I'll buy this!"

When I want to upgrade my card for video games I think "I want this GPU because it has this speed and uses this GDDR technology which gives it performance over X for whatever $."

While I'm in this thread, I thought I'd get back to the point...

Zotjen, are you looking to only build a PC for the sake of building it, or do you just desire a new PC? With a budget of $650 and not sure what you want or what you'll use it for you could throw money at Dell or some other company. The only thing I have against this is that they won't make the towers bigger than they have to. Meaning you'll get a mATX case that is slightly smaller than standard. It's meaningful if you want a bunch of upgrades like four hard drives, a bunch of cards for video, sound, wireless, controllers, etc. I like working with ATX systems. But paste a link or specifications & price and the thread can go from there.

A starter for you Dell Inspiron Desktop Details

Seems like the cheapest 7 slot ATX is $1k Dell Studio XPS 435 Desktop Computer Product Details

Quote:
Originally Posted by olblueyez View Post
People will tell you a 7200 is just as fast as a 10000 and I dont know why people do this
I don't favor WD Raptors. My opinion on them is that they cost too much and are in a strange place being performance drives marketed for consumers. No other brand competes in the Raptor niche. If you really want performance, just go the whole way and get 15k SAS drives(+ controller), or now SSD.

I mean $200 for whatever ~15% faster 150 GB vs more than a terabyte for the same price at a 20-50% slower seek time. They're all still pretty fast. SSD now now ESPECIALLY kills the point of Raptors. They're very weak on storage capacity, but the incredible speeds and 10x faster access times is a better trade off in my opinion. Raptors are closer to being over-priced consumer drives than a middle ground. And I think people say "they're the same" because they want to exaggerate the overpriced part. And less may see my view point with SAS. SSD is relatively new compared to when Raptors came out, but I think it will end the Raptor line in the near future.
post #38 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auzner View Post
m11a1 there's too much wrong in your posts, I am compelled to step in here to balance the universe.

There are two main types of Front Side Bus clocks in the computer:
1) Motherboard FSB (not adjustable)
2) CPU clock core FSB (adjustable)

These are the same bus.

The 1333MHz and 1066Mhz FSB are fixed clock numbers of the motherboard, it is IMPOSSIBLE to adjust them.
If that were true motherboards wouldn't be using the very opposite of that fact for marketing. Changing those clocks is essentially how overclocking is done.

But If you running 3.2GHz with a 1600MHz CPU clock core FSB, that would mean that you running a core multiplier of 2.
No, 8 * 400 = 3200. The Q6600's max (and default) multiplier is 9x. He put it down likely because it was more stable at the increased bus speed. 266 is the default bus, and he put it at 400.

That is ridiculously impossible to run anything stable at a 2 core multiplier. Especially with the Q6600, I have three of them and I how to overclock them well.
"2 core multiplier" is a phrase you've invented. You could have mentioned how you overclocked your three. By not understanding how the fsb relates to the multiplier it seems more like you didn't touch the BIOS and moved a slider bar in some software to do this.

Also, that chip technically only have 4Mb for cache and another 4Mb in second cache which isn't very efficient, but normal people can barely tell a difference.
Having two 4 MB caches is still 8 MB for it as a system to utilize. Overclocking the bus in which these two pairs of cores communicate improves things though. Perhaps AMD is more signal efficient, but Intel got the job done better. Past tense because technologically this is an older design.

Plus, I don't think you clearly understand the purpose of cache. The Motherboard FSB is far more important than cache. That is the speed that accesses the cache and the external memory (RAM)
Level 2 cache within a processor has its own speed unrelated to the bus. Typically more than 10x the speed of the system memory. When making a purchase decision FSB and cache are weighed less than operating frequency and cores.

You obviously don't know anything about overclocking, it's best you don't feed ignorant BS to people who actually need help.
It is my intent to show irony at this time.

Depending on your resolution you can get a graphics card with more memory
Actually around 1999 when 32 MB of graphics memory became more common the resolution issue ended. Laptops today with integrated graphics still only share about that much from system memory. The reason they may perform better than they seem is because of sharing with DDR2 type memory and and the advanced features supported.

If gaming, there's much more to weigh than just video memory. Video memory isn't as much of a concern as the actual technology used on the card. With better technologies higher video memory follows anyways. Based on the game being played or professional software being used, forums could answer a person's question of what video card would be best for them.

I made a mistake of calling that FSB, yes, you're right there's only one FSB and another Bus speed. The Bus speed is no where adjustable. Whereas the FSB is, MCC obviously had those messed up.
Spoken like a Best Buy employee.

You ****ing obviously don't understand why I mention the multiplier then, according MCC, he would have been running a 2 multiplier which is impossible for the Q6600, and how would I know that? Because I ****ing have it and I have ****ing overclocked it before. Yes, I ****ing know that is possible to have a 2 multiplier on some chips but just not on some of the newer quad cores.
You're not an authority on this, get over it.

Nor can I with you, you seem to have made some mistakes yourself, not to mention your attitude as well since you have this "oh **** look at me, I ****ing know everything" stubborn ****.
Because you've told everyone to shut up and listen to you. But to me who truely understands these terminologies and concepts you barely have a clue what you're talking about.

775 isn't dead yet and it won't be for a while too.
The LGA 775 platform is "dead" in a sense that Intel will no longer be releasing new processors for it. In other words it is now known that LGA 775's top processor will always be the QX9650 or Q9650/Q9550. (If you can afford QX9650, i7 920 would be a better use of money). But I fully agree with you that it will be used for quite awhile before we can start thinking of it in the term of "dead". At this point in time it's the list price that will decrease making it convenient for more people looking for a decent performance upgrade.

not even replying to this, just hitting !!! and going to bed
My guess on this is that you bragged of overclocking three of these but had not one of your own CPU-Z screen shots to post and instead found someone else's at stock.

Memory size don't mean much? And either does CPU clock speed? Seems like you need to go back to more studying then.
He had a point. There's too much to explain about it. But with newer technologies greater memory size follows anyways. When you target a specific technology you want on a video card, it's likely to have a minimum of 512 MB or 1 GB of video memory anyways. If you walk into a store wanting the most memory on a card that's the cheapest to play games with you'll end up with a lemon. Most people don't even realize this because they have no basis to judge 3d image quality of their game anyways due to ignorance. "Oh 2 GB is $400, but this 512 MB is $200. Hmm this 1 GB is $300. Here's a 256 MB for only $50. Hey, here's a 512 MB for $60, this seems like the optimum price for performance, so I'll buy this!"

When I want to upgrade my card for video games I think "I want this GPU because it has this speed and uses this GDDR technology which gives it performance over X for whatever $."

While I'm in this thread, I thought I'd get back to the point...

Zotjen, are you looking to only build a PC for the sake of building it, or do you just desire a new PC? With a budget of $650 and not sure what you want or what you'll use it for you could throw money at Dell or some other company. The only thing I have against this is that they won't make the towers bigger than they have to. Meaning you'll get a mATX case that is slightly smaller than standard. It's meaningful if you want a bunch of upgrades like four hard drives, a bunch of cards for video, sound, wireless, controllers, etc. I like working with ATX systems. But paste a link or specifications & price and the thread can go from there.

A starter for you Dell Inspiron Desktop Details

Seems like the cheapest 7 slot ATX is $1k Dell Studio XPS 435 Desktop Computer Product Details



I don't favor WD Raptors. My opinion on them is that they cost too much and are in a strange place being performance drives marketed for consumers. No other brand competes in the Raptor niche. If you really want performance, just go the whole way and get 15k SAS drives(+ controller), or now SSD.

I mean $200 for whatever ~15% faster 150 GB vs more than a terabyte for the same price at a 20-50% slower seek time. They're all still pretty fast. SSD now now ESPECIALLY kills the point of Raptors. They're very weak on storage capacity, but the incredible speeds and 10x faster access times is a better trade off in my opinion. Raptors are closer to being over-priced consumer drives than a middle ground. And I think people say "they're the same" because they want to exaggerate the overpriced part. And less may see my view point with SAS. SSD is relatively new compared to when Raptors came out, but I think it will end the Raptor line in the near future.
How much does a 300GB SSD cost? Who said we are in the future? Do you currently own or use a new model Raptor?

179 Bucks for the Raptor
525 bucks for the cheapest 256 gig SSD, not really competitors are they?

I would recommend the OP to get the computer configured as he has it in the first post and then add the Raptor into the system as the main system drive and then use the 500 or 1tb drive that came with the computer for storage, most places charge too much for hard drives pre installed. Didn't I tell you someone would come along and start in on the Raptor? It is the best performance for the least amount of money. Every time you go to pull up a screen or program it will load soooo much quicker and the computer will feel like it is loading programs closer to instantaneously than not. Sure SSD is nice, but 525 bucks for 256 gigs? FT Spend some of the 500 on network storage or a wireless media player or something useful. Hell, programs are not cheap, buy some nice programs with that money, or buy some music to add to your library to stream on your wireless media player from your network storage unit.
post #39 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auzner View Post
The 1333MHz and 1066Mhz FSB are fixed clock numbers of the motherboard, it is IMPOSSIBLE to adjust them.
If that were true motherboards wouldn't be using the very opposite of that fact for marketing. Changing those clocks is essentially how overclocking is done.
What I really meant here was the 1333MHz and 1066Mhz Bus speeds. They are not exactly changeable (at least not like the other ones). Do not argue with me about how you can actually change it outside of software aide.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Auzner View Post
But If you running 3.2GHz with a 1600MHz CPU clock core FSB, that would mean that you running a core multiplier of 2.
No, 8 * 400 = 3200. The Q6600's max (and default) multiplier is 9x. He put it down likely because it was more stable at the increased bus speed. 266 is the default bus, and he put it at 400.
Seriously, are you retarded? Read the post that I was replying to understand why I said what I said. That guy said:

"My Q6600 is rock solid stable at 3.2GHz with a 1600MHz FSB"

What does that mean? 3200 = multiplier x 1600 FSB, that means that the multiplier is 2. That's not possible for the Q6600 to achieve such a high clock with such a low multiplier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Auzner View Post
That is ridiculously impossible to run anything stable at a 2 core multiplier. Especially with the Q6600, I have three of them and I how to overclock them well.
"2 core multiplier" is a phrase you've invented. You could have mentioned how you overclocked your three. By not understanding how the fsb relates to the multiplier it seems more like you didn't touch the BIOS and moved a slider bar in some software to do this.
I do understand the relationship between FSB, clock, and multiplier. You attempt to prove me otherwise has failed, and actually I always overclock with the BIOS. In my opinion, it's the easiest and the most stable method, especially if you reach over the edge and the machine crashes, depending on which motherboard you have, the clock settings will automatically reset for you whereas, software overclockers may not. [/quote]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Auzner View Post
Depending on your resolution you can get a graphics card with more memory
Actually around 1999 when 32 MB of graphics memory became more common the resolution issue ended. Laptops today with integrated graphics still only share about that much from system memory. The reason they may perform better than they seem is because of sharing with DDR2 type memory and and the advanced features supported.
If you are running a resolution that is about or greater than 1920x1080, memory on the graphics card is so important. Especially in cases of gaming and intense 3d modeling and animation. I wouldn't see why laptops need a lot graphics card memory since their resolutions are that high to actually make a difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Auzner View Post
I made a mistake of calling that FSB, yes, you're right there's only one FSB and another Bus speed. The Bus speed is no where adjustable. Whereas the FSB is, MCC obviously had those messed up.
Spoken like a Best Buy employee.
In your case, spoken like a true fa**ot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Auzner View Post
775 isn't dead yet and it won't be for a while too.
The LGA 775 platform is "dead" in a sense that Intel will no longer be releasing new processors for it. In other words it is now known that LGA 775's top processor will always be the QX9650 or Q9650/Q9550. (If you can afford QX9650, i7 920 would be a better use of money). But I fully agree with you that it will be used for quite awhile before we can start thinking of it in the term of "dead". At this point in time it's the list price that will decrease making it convenient for more people looking for a decent performance upgrade.
It's not "dead", the vast population of CPU buyers are still buying way more 775's than the i7, that's a clear indication that it's not dead.....yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Auzner View Post
not even replying to this, just hitting !!! and going to bed
My guess on this is that you bragged of overclocking three of these but had not one of your own CPU-Z screen shots to post and instead found someone else's at stock.
That's actually my Q6600 running at stock, what's your point? I prefer to run this one at stock speeds because of a particular Gigabyte is hard to overclock with.
post #40 of 65
I haven't read the whole thread but if I were you I would seriously consider going i7, it's a large step in architecture from mobo, cpu to ram and the price isn't much more. Anything older at this point would be very limiting in future upgradeability.
post #41 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braver View Post
Triple channel is nice, but I doubt the OP would need more than 4GB the next 5 years. 2GB has been the standard for three years now, and while the low price is driving everybody to go 3GB or over I'd say hardly anyone will actually use that. Issues raised by fordgtlover are nice, but I doubt you are going to actually notice stuff like that.
At 2 or 3 years you'll feel the age, but it can very well be another 2 years before you'll feel the need to upgrade. I wouldn't worry about the socket of your CPU, you won't upgrade it. I would worry about RAM upgradability, as RAM types are moving a bit faster. I suggest getting what you think you might need right now: Vista and 7 will put it to good use anyway.
I was just bein a smartass by suggesting triple channel, objective benchmarks show maybe a 10-20% performance increase in the most demanding applications, and its like a 50-60% price incrase


@ auzner:
thats a ridiculously long post, and I believe the term "stirred up the hornets nest" applies, does it not? welcome to head-fi by the way! sorry that such other members exist

@ blueyez:
I think we've established the OP needs to shop within his budget, and that inexpensive hardware works, I also think quite a few engineers are getting quite sick of this guy butchering our craft

@ zodduska:
I agree 110%, but the OP has stated it exceeds his total budget (which he said was ~$650), so while it is a better option, it might not be an option for him (and thats alright, but of course, if he can swing it, he should)

another option would be to wait for AMD's AM3, as it will offer upgrades down the line as well, while AMD may not be "the king", it'd still be upgradable down the road (and for the OP's tasks, AMD's money saving side might not be so bad (~$100 for a quad core, vs $200+, yes its a bit slower, but its more than enough for all modern games and whatever, let alone the basic tasks the original guy is talkin' about)

@ m11a1:
alright, you know what, you've out-trolled everyone, and due to your general inability to conduct yourself at anything greater than that of a 12 year old, you've been reported repeatedly

oh, and mind telling the forums what you'd do to me "in person" ?
post #42 of 65
I have nothing to add on topic, been out of touch with hardware for too long :|

Quote:
Originally Posted by obobskivich View Post
oh, and mind telling the forums what you'd do to me "in person" ?
however all I can say to this is.. pwnt..
post #43 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by m11a1 View Post
Seriously, are you retarded? Read the post that I was replying to understand why I said what I said. That guy said:

"My Q6600 is rock solid stable at 3.2GHz with a 1600MHz FSB"

What does that mean? 3200 = multiplier x 1600 FSB, that means that the multiplier is 2. That's not possible for the Q6600 to achieve such a high clock with such a low multiplier.
It is an 8x multiplier times a 400MHz "real" FSB, which translates to a 1600MHz effective bus speed with QDR. This notation is consistent with Intel's marketing and I'm using it for the sake of comparison to Intel's other chips. I also don't understand your ramblings about the motherboard being stuck at 1066MHz (266MHz). The FSB is, by definition, the frequency of the data bus between the northbridge and the CPU. The north/south link speed is indeed usually fixed but a CPU with a higher FSB won't change that.

I don't see why you're being so abrasive over such an insignificant misunderstanding. Trolls are not welcome on this board.
post #44 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by m11a1 View Post

Seriously, are you retarded?

In your case, spoken like a true fa**ot.
I know people dont like to be censored but dont you think your going a bit far?
post #45 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCC View Post
It is an 8x multiplier times a 400MHz "real" FSB, which translates to a 1600MHz effective bus speed with QDR. This notation is consistent with Intel's marketing and I'm using for the sake of comparison to Intel's other chips. I also don't understand your ramblings about the motherboard being stuck at 1066MHz (266MHz). The FSB is, by definition, the frequency of the data bus between the northbridge and the CPU. The north/south link speed is indeed usually fixed but a CPU with a higher FSB won't change that.

I don't see why you're being so abrasive over such an insignificant misunderstanding. Trolls are not welcome on this board.
QFT right there, but, I wasn't about to take the time to explain QDR or clocking to someone who can't be civil

shub (do you mind the abbreviation?): you might check out TR or G3d's system guides, just to "bring you up to speed" if you're interested (you'll miss the years inbetween, but you'll be on the same page as everyone else is today, if that makes sense/helps/etc)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Gear-Fi: Non-Audio Gear and Gadgets › New Computer - Spec Questions