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
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.
.gif "Confused Face(1)")
