Re: [H] Comment: 780G Continued
At 09:26 PM 3/5/2008, you wrote: Damn, I haven't tried this, but TomsHardware pretty well flushes it out. Using the 780G, they get 1080P playback using a Sempron 3200+ (which is total crap) I have a board here on the shelf, a ASUS K8N-E Deluxe with a Semperon 3400 in it, and 1.5 GB of Kingston PC400 RAM. It runs very cool and doesn't require a large noisy fan so I was thinking of building a media box with it, just for playback and recording. With the right AGP video card in it would I have any problem playing back 1080P with it? Or should I sell it and start over?
Re: [H] Vista SP1 comments
Here's the link to the registry hack that lets you get SP3 through Windows Update: http://dailyapps.net/2007/11/hack-attack-get-windows-xp-sp3-through-windows-update/ Gary VanderMolen wrote: Vista SP1 went gold on Feb. 4th. The final version has only been distributed to beta testers and MSDN subscribers. In mid-March it will be made available for download by the general public, and in mid-April it will be pushed out by Windows Update. For more, see http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/02/04/announcing-the-rtm-of-windows-vista-sp1.aspx Gary VanderMolen, MS-MVP (WLMail) -- From: "FORC5" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> isn't Vista Sp1 still in beta ?
[H] Comment: 780G Continued
Damn, I haven't tried this, but TomsHardware pretty well flushes it out. Using the 780G, they get 1080P playback using a Sempron 3200+ (which is total crap) http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/03/04/amd_780g_chipset/page3.html Using a 3800+ X2, available many places sub $65, Blue Ray decoding at 20% CPU Usage. Ding Ding. Actually, from our playing with it, the Athlon LE-1620 works like a song on it with nary a hiccup. CW
Re: [H] Vista SP1 comments
Eh. Just slipstream the dvd, clean it up a bit and your good. :). Vlite, baby. Its all about vlite. Sent via BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Gary VanderMolen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 19:22:58 To: Subject: Re: [H] Vista SP1 comments SP1 clears the Prefetch cache, so it may take several boots before startup time is optimized again. Gary VanderMolen, MS-MVP (WLMail) -- From: "Thane Sherrington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Here is the funny part. From what I've read, SP1 is supposed to speed up > Vista. But in every test I've done (five systems so > far, and one clean install) SP1 slows the first two benchmarks by from 30% to > 50%. Now I find that ridiculous. I haven't read > up on SP1, so maybe it's giving all sorts of other exciting new features and > the "better stability and performance" that MS > talks about wasn't the main purpose, but one would think that given that > performance is one of the huge complaints about Vista, > MS would have tried to do something to make it faster. (And since boot time > and shutdown time are two of the major areas that > end users recognize as issues, these would be something to look at.)
Re: [H] Vista SP1 comments
SP1 clears the Prefetch cache, so it may take several boots before startup time is optimized again. Gary VanderMolen, MS-MVP (WLMail) -- From: "Thane Sherrington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Here is the funny part. From what I've read, SP1 is supposed to speed up Vista. But in every test I've done (five systems so far, and one clean install) SP1 slows the first two benchmarks by from 30% to 50%. Now I find that ridiculous. I haven't read up on SP1, so maybe it's giving all sorts of other exciting new features and the "better stability and performance" that MS talks about wasn't the main purpose, but one would think that given that performance is one of the huge complaints about Vista, MS would have tried to do something to make it faster. (And since boot time and shutdown time are two of the major areas that end users recognize as issues, these would be something to look at.)
Re: [H] Vista SP1 comments
Something else to think about... Most likely a lot of the performance updates in SP1 were in the updates that have been made to Vista since its release. If this is true, then adding SP1 to a fully patched pre-SP1 Vista may not show any speed increases. This is just conjecture on my part. Bobby -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bobby Heid Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:32 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] Vista SP1 comments I have noticed a notable improvement in file copy/move between disks with large files. Other copy operations may or may not be faster as the bulk of my copying is large video files between disks. Bobby > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hardware- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thane Sherrington > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 12:08 PM > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > Subject: [H] Vista SP1 comments > > > Here is the funny part. From what I've read, SP1 is supposed to > speed up Vista. But in every test I've done (five systems so far, > and one clean install) SP1 slows the first two benchmarks by from 30% > to 50%. Now I find that ridiculous. I haven't read up on SP1, so > maybe it's giving all sorts of other exciting new features and the > "better stability and performance" that MS talks about wasn't the > main purpose, but one would think that given that performance is one > of the huge complaints about Vista, MS would have tried to do > something to make it faster. (And since boot time and shutdown time > are two of the major areas that end users recognize as issues, these > would be something to look at.) > > So from what I'm seeing here, SP1 is not going to save Vista. > > T >
Re: [H] Vista SP1 comments
I have noticed a notable improvement in file copy/move between disks with large files. Other copy operations may or may not be faster as the bulk of my copying is large video files between disks. Bobby > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hardware- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thane Sherrington > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 12:08 PM > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > Subject: [H] Vista SP1 comments > > > Here is the funny part. From what I've read, SP1 is supposed to > speed up Vista. But in every test I've done (five systems so far, > and one clean install) SP1 slows the first two benchmarks by from 30% > to 50%. Now I find that ridiculous. I haven't read up on SP1, so > maybe it's giving all sorts of other exciting new features and the > "better stability and performance" that MS talks about wasn't the > main purpose, but one would think that given that performance is one > of the huge complaints about Vista, MS would have tried to do > something to make it faster. (And since boot time and shutdown time > are two of the major areas that end users recognize as issues, these > would be something to look at.) > > So from what I'm seeing here, SP1 is not going to save Vista. > > T >
Re: [H] Vista SP1 comments
Vista SP1 went gold on Feb. 4th. The final version has only been distributed to beta testers and MSDN subscribers. In mid-March it will be made available for download by the general public, and in mid-April it will be pushed out by Windows Update. For more, see http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/02/04/announcing-the-rtm-of-windows-vista-sp1.aspx Gary VanderMolen, MS-MVP (WLMail) -- From: "FORC5" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> isn't Vista Sp1 still in beta ?
Re: [H] Vista SP1 comments
At 04:14 PM 05/03/2008, Greg Sevart wrote: My argument is that you couldn't tell that -Office- was 10% faster. :) LOL! Good point. T
Re: [H] Vista SP1 comments
At 02:40 PM 05/03/2008, Greg Sevart wrote: Hmm, that's contrary to the SP1 reviews I'd read...were these "established" Pre-SP1 Vista machines, or clean installs of both? I've tried both. And the argument that a slow Vista machine must be blamed on 3rd party software is bunk, IMO. I can speed up an XP machine by removing the startup crapware and reconfiguring the services easily - this can't be done with Vista. Removing startup programs doesn't have the same affect. The reason I ask is that SP1 clears Vista's SuperFetch learned behavior cache, so it's re-learning from scratch. That could play a big role in that test... How long would it take Superfetch to relearn? If I rebooted 10 times, should it slowly get faster until I see an improvement, in theory? If so, I'd be happy to test that. T
Re: [H] Vista SP1 comments
isn't Vista Sp1 still in beta ? fp At 11:08 AM 3/5/2008, Thane Sherrington Poked the stick with: >Here is the funny part. From what I've read, SP1 is supposed to speed up >Vista. But in every test I've done (five systems so far, and one clean >install) SP1 slows the first two benchmarks by from 30% to 50%. Now I find >that ridiculous. I haven't read up on SP1, so maybe it's giving all sorts of >other exciting new features and the "better stability and performance" that MS >talks about wasn't the main purpose, but one would think that given that >performance is one of the huge complaints about Vista, MS would have tried to >do something to make it faster. (And since boot time and shutdown time are >two of the major areas that end users recognize as issues, these would be >something to look at.) > >So from what I'm seeing here, SP1 is not going to save Vista. -- Tallyho ! ]:8) Taglines below ! -- Mistrust first impulses, they are always good.
Re: [H] Vista SP1 comments
At 02:28 PM 05/03/2008, Ben Ruset wrote: When I was running Vista, I put SP1 on (grabbed from MSDN) and noticed no performance benefit as well. I'm quite worried when XP stops selling (if MS decides to do that in June.) How can I with a straight face sell an OS that I know is inferior and that MS can't even provide legitimate support on? (I've had several problems including a machine on which SP1 wouldn't install, where MS's answer was "Well, reinstall Vista.") T
Re: [H] Vista SP1 comments
My argument is that you couldn't tell that -Office- was 10% faster. :) The point remains that it's isolated to Office. With that in mind, I have to ask...who cares? > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hardware- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thane Sherrington > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 2:03 PM > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > Subject: Re: [H] Vista SP1 comments > > At 03:40 PM 05/03/2008, Greg Sevart wrote: > >Gah. This again? > > > >No, SP3 does not speed up XP. The test everybody references was > comparing MS > >Office 2007 pre- and post-SP3, and the improvement was only 10%. I am > not > >sure that I could actually determine if office is running 30% faster, > let > >alone 10%. > > Actually, 5% or more is detectable, scientifically speaking. > > T >
Re: [H] Brief comment: 780G
That's pretty sweet. I think I'm still going to go with a set top box for the time being and give this about 6 months or so but it looks very promising. Does it support HDCP? On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 1:46 PM, CW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yeah, um, that's the point. None of those is the 780G. > > It's a 690G, a 7100, and a G35. > > Benchmarks show the 780G is roughly 4 times faster then the G35, and more > then double the 7100. > > And, having tested it, using 1080P, I get nothing but extremely fluid > blueray playback. > > That's the whole reason why I started the thread, to point out that the 780G > significantly alters the way people think about onboard video solutions. > > > Others seem to agree: > http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/03/05/780g-changes-graphics-game > > Example: > > > http://www.hothardware.com/articles/AMD_780G_Chipset_and_Athlon_X2_4850e_Preview_/?page=8 > > Using a 4850e AMD Chip (their new low voltage CPU, so think about it around > a 4000+ or so) > > Whereas the G35 is at 95% CPU usage to try and pull off 1080P, the 780G is > around 50%, which is more then passable, because it means that you're almost > never going to have flubs in your video. > > Thus, the game changes. > > > > > -Original message- > From: "Brian Weeden" [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:30:01 -0800 > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > Subject: Re: [H] Brief comment: 780G > > > Bit-tech.net did a roundup of micro-ATX mobos for HTPC use with > > built-in video. While the boards were fine, unfortunately the results > > showed that none of the on-board solutions could handle Blu-Ray or > > HD-DVD decoding. So basically, either wait for the next gen, buy a > > video card, or just use a set top box: > > > > > http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/02/05/home_theatre_pc_motherboards_feb_08/1 > > > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Hayes Elkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > If this is accurate, this is by far the best IGP for HTPC: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_700_chipset_series#Integrated_graphics > > > > > > AMD/ATI right now clearly has the superior IGP for hardware accelerated > H.264 and VC-1, plus superior post processing vs NVidia's VP2 generation. > Intel may as well just scrap the G35 and rethink their plans for G45. > > > > > > I like the direction these things are going - these are now legit > players in a growing market and they can focus on HTPC and abandon the idea > of trying to get an IGP to play Crysis at reasonable FPS :) > > > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > > > > Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 11:24:15 -0600 > > > > Subject: [H] Brief comment: 780G > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, so now that it's out, I can say a few things: > > > > > > > > (1) The 780G on AMD's end is maybe one of the more impressive > chipsets I've > > > > seen in a very long time. We've been giving it a run on a few of our > > > > monitors using the Asus MB, and have found it pretty stunning what > kind of > > > > performance you can get. Even using a simple (read: CHEAP) 3800+ X2, > we had > > > > no problems running BlueRay discs at full acceleration to a 61" > Samsung DLP. > > > > Video is fast, smooth, and power usage is very low.. > > > > > > > > (2) Putting this thing in a micro case works, which is an advantage. > > > > > > > > (3) I'm not sure about the market for "Oh, combine to a 3450 and do > Hybrid > > > > SLI. First, it only works under Vista SP1, which will be primarily > new PCS > > > > (fine, and BTW, when it is available to public download it's worth it) > > > > > > > > (4) Now we have to see what Intel responds with. Nvidia's already > kind of > > > > boned themselves, the 9800 series is delayed (AGAIN), and the 8200 > IGP is > > > > both behind and, by their projections will be at least 15% slower > then the > > > > 780G. Intel's G35 looks particularly putrid in comparison > > > > > > > > For those looking to do a Media Center box, this is the best combo > I've > > > > seen. The chipset has it all - Full HDMI 1.3 support with DTS Master > Audio, > > > > TrueHD capability, Blueray decoding at low CPU usage on even a cheap > ass > > > > CPU, and tons of SATA ports for drives. > > > > > > > > While AMD has been in the doldrums on their CPU side, it's good to see > > > > something positive over there going on. > > > > > > > > CW > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _ > > > Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with > star power. > > > > http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_jan >
Re: [H] Vista SP1 comments
At 03:40 PM 05/03/2008, Greg Sevart wrote: Gah. This again? No, SP3 does not speed up XP. The test everybody references was comparing MS Office 2007 pre- and post-SP3, and the improvement was only 10%. I am not sure that I could actually determine if office is running 30% faster, let alone 10%. Actually, 5% or more is detectable, scientifically speaking. T
Re: [H] Vista SP1 comments
At 03:40 PM 05/03/2008, Greg Sevart wrote: Gah. This again? No, SP3 does not speed up XP. The test everybody references was comparing MS Office 2007 pre- and post-SP3, and the improvement was only 10%. I am not sure that I could actually determine if office is running 30% faster, let alone 10%. Other tests have not found any appreciable difference in any other aspect. Vista SP1 does better in lower-memory systems too, from what I've heard. Well my benchmarks prove that on 1GB systems, SP1 decreases performance. Upgrading the RAM to 2GB had zero impact on these benchmarks. T
Re: [H] Vista SP1 comments
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:40:19 -0600 > Subject: Re: [H] Vista SP1 comments > No, SP3 does not speed up XP. http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/11/windows-xp-sp3-yields-performance-gains.html >The test everybody references was comparing MS > Office 2007 pre- and post-SP3, and the improvement was only 10%. Last I checked, that's a speed improvement. _ Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star power. http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_jan
Re: [H] Vista SP1 comments
Gah. This again? No, SP3 does not speed up XP. The test everybody references was comparing MS Office 2007 pre- and post-SP3, and the improvement was only 10%. I am not sure that I could actually determine if office is running 30% faster, let alone 10%. Other tests have not found any appreciable difference in any other aspect. Vista SP1 does better in lower-memory systems too, from what I've heard. Greg > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hardware- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hayes Elkins > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 12:21 PM > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > Subject: Re: [H] Vista SP1 comments > > > Meanwhile SP3 actually *does* speed up XP a bit and the idle memory > footprint is a little less. Go figure. > > Vista = Windows ME part II > > Pure garbage. > >
Re: [H] Brief comment: 780G
And none of them were using the 780G :) > Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:30:01 -0500 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > Subject: Re: [H] Brief comment: 780G > > Bit-tech.net did a roundup of micro-ATX mobos for HTPC use with > built-in video. While the boards were fine, unfortunately the results > showed that none of the on-board solutions could handle Blu-Ray or > HD-DVD decoding. So basically, either wait for the next gen, buy a > video card, or just use a set top box: > > http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/02/05/home_theatre_pc_motherboards_feb_08/1 > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Hayes Elkins wrote: >> >> >> If this is accurate, this is by far the best IGP for HTPC: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_700_chipset_series#Integrated_graphics >> >> AMD/ATI right now clearly has the superior IGP for hardware accelerated >> H.264 and VC-1, plus superior post processing vs NVidia's VP2 generation. >> Intel may as well just scrap the G35 and rethink their plans for G45. >> >> I like the direction these things are going - these are now legit players in >> a growing market and they can focus on HTPC and abandon the idea of trying >> to get an IGP to play Crysis at reasonable FPS :) >> >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com >>> Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 11:24:15 -0600 >>> Subject: [H] Brief comment: 780G >> >> >>> >>> Ok, so now that it's out, I can say a few things: >>> >>> (1) The 780G on AMD's end is maybe one of the more impressive chipsets I've >>> seen in a very long time. We've been giving it a run on a few of our >>> monitors using the Asus MB, and have found it pretty stunning what kind of >>> performance you can get. Even using a simple (read: CHEAP) 3800+ X2, we had >>> no problems running BlueRay discs at full acceleration to a 61" Samsung DLP. >>> Video is fast, smooth, and power usage is very low.. >>> >>> (2) Putting this thing in a micro case works, which is an advantage. >>> >>> (3) I'm not sure about the market for "Oh, combine to a 3450 and do Hybrid >>> SLI. First, it only works under Vista SP1, which will be primarily new PCS >>> (fine, and BTW, when it is available to public download it's worth it) >>> >>> (4) Now we have to see what Intel responds with. Nvidia's already kind of >>> boned themselves, the 9800 series is delayed (AGAIN), and the 8200 IGP is >>> both behind and, by their projections will be at least 15% slower then the >>> 780G. Intel's G35 looks particularly putrid in comparison >>> >>> For those looking to do a Media Center box, this is the best combo I've >>> seen. The chipset has it all - Full HDMI 1.3 support with DTS Master Audio, >>> TrueHD capability, Blueray decoding at low CPU usage on even a cheap ass >>> CPU, and tons of SATA ports for drives. >>> >>> While AMD has been in the doldrums on their CPU side, it's good to see >>> something positive over there going on. >>> >>> CW >>> >>> >> >> _ >> Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star >> power. >> http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_jan _ Helping your favorite cause is as easy as instant messaging. You IM, we give. http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=text_hotmail_join
Re: [H] Vista SP1 comments
Reason #`144 to stick with Windows XP if you can. On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Hayes Elkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Meanwhile SP3 actually *does* speed up XP a bit and the idle memory > footprint is a little less. Go figure. > > Vista = Windows ME part II > > Pure garbage. > > > > Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 14:08:01 -0400 > > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: [H] Vista SP1 comments > > > > > I've been trying to speed up Vista machines for customers (I've been > > doing this for sometime with XP) and as a benchmark, I measure the > following: > > > > Boot time (from power on until I can see the icons in My Computer. > > Time to drops below 5% for 10 seconds straight.) > > > Shutdown time (from clicking Turn Off until the computer powers off.) > > > > Now Vista is slower than XP on all three tests on every machine I've > > tried (I've even done fresh installs of XP vs fresh installs of > > Vista.) Now I'm not saying Vista sucks because it boots more slowly, > > but it certainly isn't a plus for the OS. > > > > Here is the funny part. From what I've read, SP1 is supposed to > > speed up Vista. But in every test I've done (five systems so far, > > and one clean install) SP1 slows the first two benchmarks by from 30% > > to 50%. Now I find that ridiculous. I haven't read up on SP1, so > > maybe it's giving all sorts of other exciting new features and the > > "better stability and performance" that MS talks about wasn't the > > main purpose, but one would think that given that performance is one > > of the huge complaints about Vista, MS would have tried to do > > something to make it faster. (And since boot time and shutdown time > > are two of the major areas that end users recognize as issues, these > > would be something to look at.) > > > > So from what I'm seeing here, SP1 is not going to save Vista. > > > > T > > > > > > _ > Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live. > http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008
Re: [H] Vista SP1 comments
Meanwhile SP3 actually *does* speed up XP a bit and the idle memory footprint is a little less. Go figure. Vista = Windows ME part II Pure garbage. > Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 14:08:01 -0400 > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [H] Vista SP1 comments > > I've been trying to speed up Vista machines for customers (I've been > doing this for sometime with XP) and as a benchmark, I measure the following: > > Boot time (from power on until I can see the icons in My Computer. > Time to drops below 5% for 10 seconds straight.) > Shutdown time (from clicking Turn Off until the computer powers off.) > > Now Vista is slower than XP on all three tests on every machine I've > tried (I've even done fresh installs of XP vs fresh installs of > Vista.) Now I'm not saying Vista sucks because it boots more slowly, > but it certainly isn't a plus for the OS. > > Here is the funny part. From what I've read, SP1 is supposed to > speed up Vista. But in every test I've done (five systems so far, > and one clean install) SP1 slows the first two benchmarks by from 30% > to 50%. Now I find that ridiculous. I haven't read up on SP1, so > maybe it's giving all sorts of other exciting new features and the > "better stability and performance" that MS talks about wasn't the > main purpose, but one would think that given that performance is one > of the huge complaints about Vista, MS would have tried to do > something to make it faster. (And since boot time and shutdown time > are two of the major areas that end users recognize as issues, these > would be something to look at.) > > So from what I'm seeing here, SP1 is not going to save Vista. > > T > > _ Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live. http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008
Re: [H] CPUs
The difference between the QX9650 and Q6600 is the following: 3.0Ghz vs 2.4 Ghz 1333 vs 1066 FSB 65nm vs 45nm 12mb vs 2x4mb L2 The QX9650 is $1,100 while the two I were considering were around $250. I really don't think I'm going to get 4 times the value out of that CPU, especially when in a years time I can drop in the same chip and still have spent less for 2 CPUs. On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Winterlight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have been trying to decide the same choice for my media > editing/encoding box. I didn't know about the E8400 Wolfsdale, as I > was looking at the Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 Conroe 3.0GHz . Is the only > difference the cache size, and, of course, the cheaper price? > > Am I the only one considering Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 Yorkfield > 3.0GHz 12MB L2 Cache? It can be had for what I paid for my dual > 3.56Ghz Xeons five years ago. I bought them in the 2/04 and four > years later they still do everything I need to do and they don't seem > old to me at all. As long as the premium ASUS motherboard holds up > they should continue to do their job well into the future. The only > down side is power cost, they suck up as much electricity as my > refrigerator, but they have proved to be a great value to me. > > I see the same future value for the QX9650. And the Extreme CPUs > offer maximum versatility, as well as holding their value remarkably > well. Unless I see something better this is the choice I will probably make. > > > > > > >So I'm debating between these two CPUs: > >Q6600 Kentsfield (2.4 Ghz, Quadcore, 65nm) > >E8400 Wolfsdale (3.0 Ghz, Dualcore, 45nm) > >
Re: [H] CPUs
I have been trying to decide the same choice for my media editing/encoding box. I didn't know about the E8400 Wolfsdale, as I was looking at the Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 Conroe 3.0GHz . Is the only difference the cache size, and, of course, the cheaper price? Am I the only one considering Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 Yorkfield 3.0GHz 12MB L2 Cache? It can be had for what I paid for my dual 3.56Ghz Xeons five years ago. I bought them in the 2/04 and four years later they still do everything I need to do and they don't seem old to me at all. As long as the premium ASUS motherboard holds up they should continue to do their job well into the future. The only down side is power cost, they suck up as much electricity as my refrigerator, but they have proved to be a great value to me. I see the same future value for the QX9650. And the Extreme CPUs offer maximum versatility, as well as holding their value remarkably well. Unless I see something better this is the choice I will probably make. So I'm debating between these two CPUs: Q6600 Kentsfield (2.4 Ghz, Quadcore, 65nm) E8400 Wolfsdale (3.0 Ghz, Dualcore, 45nm)
Re: [H] Brief comment: 780G
Yeah, um, that's the point. None of those is the 780G. It's a 690G, a 7100, and a G35. Benchmarks show the 780G is roughly 4 times faster then the G35, and more then double the 7100. And, having tested it, using 1080P, I get nothing but extremely fluid blueray playback. That's the whole reason why I started the thread, to point out that the 780G significantly alters the way people think about onboard video solutions. Others seem to agree: http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/03/05/780g-changes-graphics-game Example: http://www.hothardware.com/articles/AMD_780G_Chipset_and_Athlon_X2_4850e_Preview_/?page=8 Using a 4850e AMD Chip (their new low voltage CPU, so think about it around a 4000+ or so) Whereas the G35 is at 95% CPU usage to try and pull off 1080P, the 780G is around 50%, which is more then passable, because it means that you're almost never going to have flubs in your video. Thus, the game changes. -Original message- From: "Brian Weeden" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:30:01 -0800 To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] Brief comment: 780G > Bit-tech.net did a roundup of micro-ATX mobos for HTPC use with > built-in video. While the boards were fine, unfortunately the results > showed that none of the on-board solutions could handle Blu-Ray or > HD-DVD decoding. So basically, either wait for the next gen, buy a > video card, or just use a set top box: > > http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/02/05/home_theatre_pc_motherboards_feb_08/1 > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Hayes Elkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > If this is accurate, this is by far the best IGP for HTPC: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_700_chipset_series#Integrated_graphics > > > > AMD/ATI right now clearly has the superior IGP for hardware accelerated > > H.264 and VC-1, plus superior post processing vs NVidia's VP2 generation. > > Intel may as well just scrap the G35 and rethink their plans for G45. > > > > I like the direction these things are going - these are now legit players > > in a growing market and they can focus on HTPC and abandon the idea of > > trying to get an IGP to play Crysis at reasonable FPS :) > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > > > Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 11:24:15 -0600 > > > Subject: [H] Brief comment: 780G > > > > > > > > > > Ok, so now that it's out, I can say a few things: > > > > > > (1) The 780G on AMD's end is maybe one of the more impressive chipsets > > I've > > > seen in a very long time. We've been giving it a run on a few of our > > > monitors using the Asus MB, and have found it pretty stunning what kind > > of > > > performance you can get. Even using a simple (read: CHEAP) 3800+ X2, we > > had > > > no problems running BlueRay discs at full acceleration to a 61" Samsung > > DLP. > > > Video is fast, smooth, and power usage is very low.. > > > > > > (2) Putting this thing in a micro case works, which is an advantage. > > > > > > (3) I'm not sure about the market for "Oh, combine to a 3450 and do > > Hybrid > > > SLI. First, it only works under Vista SP1, which will be primarily new > > PCS > > > (fine, and BTW, when it is available to public download it's worth it) > > > > > > (4) Now we have to see what Intel responds with. Nvidia's already kind of > > > boned themselves, the 9800 series is delayed (AGAIN), and the 8200 IGP is > > > both behind and, by their projections will be at least 15% slower then > > the > > > 780G. Intel's G35 looks particularly putrid in comparison > > > > > > For those looking to do a Media Center box, this is the best combo I've > > > seen. The chipset has it all - Full HDMI 1.3 support with DTS Master > > Audio, > > > TrueHD capability, Blueray decoding at low CPU usage on even a cheap ass > > > CPU, and tons of SATA ports for drives. > > > > > > While AMD has been in the doldrums on their CPU side, it's good to see > > > something positive over there going on. > > > > > > CW > > > > > > > > > > _ > > Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star > > power. > > http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_jan
Re: [H] Vista SP1 comments
Hmm, that's contrary to the SP1 reviews I'd read...were these "established" Pre-SP1 Vista machines, or clean installs of both? The reason I ask is that SP1 clears Vista's SuperFetch learned behavior cache, so it's re-learning from scratch. That could play a big role in that test... I personally don't think Vista needed saving in the first place--it's really no more or less quirky than any other version of Windows I've used. Performance on good hardware has been quite reasonable, stability has frankly been excellent, and drivers (namely video) have improved dramatically... Greg > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hardware- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thane Sherrington > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 12:08 PM > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > Subject: [H] Vista SP1 comments > > I've been trying to speed up Vista machines for customers (I've been > doing this for sometime with XP) and as a benchmark, I measure the > following: > > Boot time (from power on until I can see the icons in My Computer. > Time to <5% CPU utilization (from power up until the CPU utilization > drops below 5% for 10 seconds straight.) > Shutdown time (from clicking Turn Off until the computer powers off.) > > Now Vista is slower than XP on all three tests on every machine I've > tried (I've even done fresh installs of XP vs fresh installs of > Vista.) Now I'm not saying Vista sucks because it boots more slowly, > but it certainly isn't a plus for the OS. > > Here is the funny part. From what I've read, SP1 is supposed to > speed up Vista. But in every test I've done (five systems so far, > and one clean install) SP1 slows the first two benchmarks by from 30% > to 50%. Now I find that ridiculous. I haven't read up on SP1, so > maybe it's giving all sorts of other exciting new features and the > "better stability and performance" that MS talks about wasn't the > main purpose, but one would think that given that performance is one > of the huge complaints about Vista, MS would have tried to do > something to make it faster. (And since boot time and shutdown time > are two of the major areas that end users recognize as issues, these > would be something to look at.) > > So from what I'm seeing here, SP1 is not going to save Vista. > > T >
Re: [H] Vista SP1 comments
When I was running Vista, I put SP1 on (grabbed from MSDN) and noticed no performance benefit as well. Thane Sherrington wrote: So from what I'm seeing here, SP1 is not going to save Vista.
Re: [H] Brief comment: 780G
Bit-tech.net did a roundup of micro-ATX mobos for HTPC use with built-in video. While the boards were fine, unfortunately the results showed that none of the on-board solutions could handle Blu-Ray or HD-DVD decoding. So basically, either wait for the next gen, buy a video card, or just use a set top box: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/02/05/home_theatre_pc_motherboards_feb_08/1 On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Hayes Elkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If this is accurate, this is by far the best IGP for HTPC: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_700_chipset_series#Integrated_graphics > > AMD/ATI right now clearly has the superior IGP for hardware accelerated > H.264 and VC-1, plus superior post processing vs NVidia's VP2 generation. > Intel may as well just scrap the G35 and rethink their plans for G45. > > I like the direction these things are going - these are now legit players in > a growing market and they can focus on HTPC and abandon the idea of trying to > get an IGP to play Crysis at reasonable FPS :) > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > > Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 11:24:15 -0600 > > Subject: [H] Brief comment: 780G > > > > > > Ok, so now that it's out, I can say a few things: > > > > (1) The 780G on AMD's end is maybe one of the more impressive chipsets I've > > seen in a very long time. We've been giving it a run on a few of our > > monitors using the Asus MB, and have found it pretty stunning what kind of > > performance you can get. Even using a simple (read: CHEAP) 3800+ X2, we had > > no problems running BlueRay discs at full acceleration to a 61" Samsung > DLP. > > Video is fast, smooth, and power usage is very low.. > > > > (2) Putting this thing in a micro case works, which is an advantage. > > > > (3) I'm not sure about the market for "Oh, combine to a 3450 and do Hybrid > > SLI. First, it only works under Vista SP1, which will be primarily new PCS > > (fine, and BTW, when it is available to public download it's worth it) > > > > (4) Now we have to see what Intel responds with. Nvidia's already kind of > > boned themselves, the 9800 series is delayed (AGAIN), and the 8200 IGP is > > both behind and, by their projections will be at least 15% slower then the > > 780G. Intel's G35 looks particularly putrid in comparison > > > > For those looking to do a Media Center box, this is the best combo I've > > seen. The chipset has it all - Full HDMI 1.3 support with DTS Master Audio, > > TrueHD capability, Blueray decoding at low CPU usage on even a cheap ass > > CPU, and tons of SATA ports for drives. > > > > While AMD has been in the doldrums on their CPU side, it's good to see > > something positive over there going on. > > > > CW > > > > > > _ > Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star > power. > http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_jan
Re: [H] Brief comment: 780G
If this is accurate, this is by far the best IGP for HTPC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_700_chipset_series#Integrated_graphics AMD/ATI right now clearly has the superior IGP for hardware accelerated H.264 and VC-1, plus superior post processing vs NVidia's VP2 generation. Intel may as well just scrap the G35 and rethink their plans for G45. I like the direction these things are going - these are now legit players in a growing market and they can focus on HTPC and abandon the idea of trying to get an IGP to play Crysis at reasonable FPS :) > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 11:24:15 -0600 > Subject: [H] Brief comment: 780G > > Ok, so now that it's out, I can say a few things: > > (1) The 780G on AMD's end is maybe one of the more impressive chipsets I've > seen in a very long time. We've been giving it a run on a few of our > monitors using the Asus MB, and have found it pretty stunning what kind of > performance you can get. Even using a simple (read: CHEAP) 3800+ X2, we had > no problems running BlueRay discs at full acceleration to a 61" Samsung DLP. > Video is fast, smooth, and power usage is very low.. > > (2) Putting this thing in a micro case works, which is an advantage. > > (3) I'm not sure about the market for "Oh, combine to a 3450 and do Hybrid > SLI. First, it only works under Vista SP1, which will be primarily new PCS > (fine, and BTW, when it is available to public download it's worth it) > > (4) Now we have to see what Intel responds with. Nvidia's already kind of > boned themselves, the 9800 series is delayed (AGAIN), and the 8200 IGP is > both behind and, by their projections will be at least 15% slower then the > 780G. Intel's G35 looks particularly putrid in comparison > > For those looking to do a Media Center box, this is the best combo I've > seen. The chipset has it all - Full HDMI 1.3 support with DTS Master Audio, > TrueHD capability, Blueray decoding at low CPU usage on even a cheap ass > CPU, and tons of SATA ports for drives. > > While AMD has been in the doldrums on their CPU side, it's good to see > something positive over there going on. > > CW > > _ Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star power. http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_jan
[H] Vista SP1 comments
I've been trying to speed up Vista machines for customers (I've been doing this for sometime with XP) and as a benchmark, I measure the following: Boot time (from power on until I can see the icons in My Computer. Time to <5% CPU utilization (from power up until the CPU utilization drops below 5% for 10 seconds straight.) Shutdown time (from clicking Turn Off until the computer powers off.) Now Vista is slower than XP on all three tests on every machine I've tried (I've even done fresh installs of XP vs fresh installs of Vista.) Now I'm not saying Vista sucks because it boots more slowly, but it certainly isn't a plus for the OS. Here is the funny part. From what I've read, SP1 is supposed to speed up Vista. But in every test I've done (five systems so far, and one clean install) SP1 slows the first two benchmarks by from 30% to 50%. Now I find that ridiculous. I haven't read up on SP1, so maybe it's giving all sorts of other exciting new features and the "better stability and performance" that MS talks about wasn't the main purpose, but one would think that given that performance is one of the huge complaints about Vista, MS would have tried to do something to make it faster. (And since boot time and shutdown time are two of the major areas that end users recognize as issues, these would be something to look at.) So from what I'm seeing here, SP1 is not going to save Vista. T
[H] Brief comment: 780G
Ok, so now that it's out, I can say a few things: (1) The 780G on AMD's end is maybe one of the more impressive chipsets I've seen in a very long time. We've been giving it a run on a few of our monitors using the Asus MB, and have found it pretty stunning what kind of performance you can get. Even using a simple (read: CHEAP) 3800+ X2, we had no problems running BlueRay discs at full acceleration to a 61" Samsung DLP. Video is fast, smooth, and power usage is very low.. (2) Putting this thing in a micro case works, which is an advantage. (3) I'm not sure about the market for "Oh, combine to a 3450 and do Hybrid SLI. First, it only works under Vista SP1, which will be primarily new PCS (fine, and BTW, when it is available to public download it's worth it) (4) Now we have to see what Intel responds with. Nvidia's already kind of boned themselves, the 9800 series is delayed (AGAIN), and the 8200 IGP is both behind and, by their projections will be at least 15% slower then the 780G. Intel's G35 looks particularly putrid in comparison For those looking to do a Media Center box, this is the best combo I've seen. The chipset has it all - Full HDMI 1.3 support with DTS Master Audio, TrueHD capability, Blueray decoding at low CPU usage on even a cheap ass CPU, and tons of SATA ports for drives. While AMD has been in the doldrums on their CPU side, it's good to see something positive over there going on. CW
Re: [H] CPUs
My problem is that if I buy all these parts in Canada it's going to be 20-30% more than in the US when you add in the additional markups and taxes (not to mention its a nightmare to find one place that has everything you need in stock). But we are heading to the States for Easter to visit family and thus I can bring them back across and as long as we are gone more than 48 hours (and not unlucky) we don't have to pay duty. So the time does matter for me :) Using all that extra overclocked horsepower is not really useful now but in a year or two I find its what keeps an older CPU chugging right along with the new boys and can extend the upgrade cycle. I think I am leaning towards the DualCore Wolfsdale because I think there is a lot of value in having the 45nm cores. If a few months down the road it turns out I need more power I can dump in a quad core then. On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 11:35 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The Q9450 is due for official release on the 19th I think (in the UK at > least, I expected the US to have it earlier *shrug*), so potentially another > 2 weeks wait.although if you keep a PC for 4 years, whats 2 weeks wait? :) > > > Hitting 4GHz is nice but there is very little that you would need that for. > Games do not utilise that much power as most are GPU-bound, which leaves you > are pure mathematical programs such as video encoders and [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I have a water-cooled Q6600 that I have overclocked from between 3.2 and > 3.7GHz since I have had it and in the vast majority of the work I do, the > difference those extra 500MHz make are not noticable. > > With the new 45nm Yorkfield cores, its even less of an issue as they are > supposedly 5-10% faster clock for clock over the previous 65nm cores. > > There has also been a lot of debate over the Yorkfield cores burning out > rapidly when over-volted. The theory is that the 45nm process leaves them > substantially more suscetible to burn-out and therefore keeping the voltage > as close to stock as possible is advised for day-to-day use. > > It could be scare-mongering by overly-eager overclockers but I wouldn't > chance any large voltage bumps on a yorkfield until they have been on shelves > for a few weeks. > > > Regards, > > Jason Tozer > Database Analyst > London > Ext 1131 - 3SC.5 > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Brian Weeden > > > Sent: 05 March 2008 16:23 > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > Subject: Re: [H] CPUs > > > I was looking for that quadcore and couldn't find it on Newegg, which > is weird, because it comes up at a lot of smaller dealers under > Froogle. And there is no mention of the Q9450 on Anand's site or > Tom's Hardware, which is really strange if the CPUs have been released > (or are close to release). > > I'm also taking overclocking potential into mind here. I know that > there are some on the list who shy away from it but I've overclocked > every CPU I've had and always taken advantage of free CPU cycles. And > I completely agree with the methodology and risks laid out here (which > I am willing to take): > > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3251&p=6 > > Many people are overclocking the E8400 to 4 Ghz with standard voltage > and air cooling which is a definite bonus in its book. The Q6600 does > alright and can get to 3 Ghz without too much trouble, but runs much > hotter and sucks up a ton of power. The issue with the Q9450 is that > it is multiplier locked at 8x, meaning the only way to overclock it is > to bump up the bus speed which is a much harder prospect. Also keep > in mind that the bus speed with a dualcore is essentially 1/2 the bus > speed of a dual core. > > Thanks for the pointer on the mobo - you are definitely right on with that > one. > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 10:20 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If you expect these new parts to be the foundation of a PC that will last > 3-4 years again (with upgrades) I would certainly look at getting an IX38 > chipset. > > > > Also, take a look at the Q9450, gives you the best of both worlds :) > > > > If your set on the parts you listed, your CPU choice is based on what you > run now and intend to run in the future...if you are going to run a lot > of VMs, then the quad is almost certainly better. > > > > VMWare (Workstation at least) limits the number of CPUs to 2 per guest OS > but this should not be an issue in anyway. > > > > Regards, > > > > Jason Tozer > > Database Analyst > > London > > Ext 1131 - 3SC.5 > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Brian Weeden > > Sent: 05 March 2008 15:14 > > To: hwg > > Subject: [H] CPUs > > > > > > Going to be buying the parts for a new PC next week and I'm pretty > > psyched as I'm replacing an Athlon system I built 3-4 years ago
Re: [H] CPUs
The Q9450 is due for official release on the 19th I think (in the UK at least, I expected the US to have it earlier *shrug*), so potentially another 2 weeks wait.although if you keep a PC for 4 years, whats 2 weeks wait? :) Hitting 4GHz is nice but there is very little that you would need that for. Games do not utilise that much power as most are GPU-bound, which leaves you are pure mathematical programs such as video encoders and [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have a water-cooled Q6600 that I have overclocked from between 3.2 and 3.7GHz since I have had it and in the vast majority of the work I do, the difference those extra 500MHz make are not noticable. With the new 45nm Yorkfield cores, its even less of an issue as they are supposedly 5-10% faster clock for clock over the previous 65nm cores. There has also been a lot of debate over the Yorkfield cores burning out rapidly when over-volted. The theory is that the 45nm process leaves them substantially more suscetible to burn-out and therefore keeping the voltage as close to stock as possible is advised for day-to-day use. It could be scare-mongering by overly-eager overclockers but I wouldn't chance any large voltage bumps on a yorkfield until they have been on shelves for a few weeks. Regards, Jason Tozer Database Analyst London Ext 1131 - 3SC.5 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Brian Weeden Sent: 05 March 2008 16:23 To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] CPUs I was looking for that quadcore and couldn't find it on Newegg, which is weird, because it comes up at a lot of smaller dealers under Froogle. And there is no mention of the Q9450 on Anand's site or Tom's Hardware, which is really strange if the CPUs have been released (or are close to release). I'm also taking overclocking potential into mind here. I know that there are some on the list who shy away from it but I've overclocked every CPU I've had and always taken advantage of free CPU cycles. And I completely agree with the methodology and risks laid out here (which I am willing to take): http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3251&p=6 Many people are overclocking the E8400 to 4 Ghz with standard voltage and air cooling which is a definite bonus in its book. The Q6600 does alright and can get to 3 Ghz without too much trouble, but runs much hotter and sucks up a ton of power. The issue with the Q9450 is that it is multiplier locked at 8x, meaning the only way to overclock it is to bump up the bus speed which is a much harder prospect. Also keep in mind that the bus speed with a dualcore is essentially 1/2 the bus speed of a dual core. Thanks for the pointer on the mobo - you are definitely right on with that one. On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 10:20 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you expect these new parts to be the foundation of a PC that will last 3-4 > years again (with upgrades) I would certainly look at getting an IX38 chipset. > > Also, take a look at the Q9450, gives you the best of both worlds :) > > If your set on the parts you listed, your CPU choice is based on what you > run now and intend to run in the future...if you are going to run a lot > of VMs, then the quad is almost certainly better. > > VMWare (Workstation at least) limits the number of CPUs to 2 per guest OS > but this should not be an issue in anyway. > > Regards, > > Jason Tozer > Database Analyst > London > Ext 1131 - 3SC.5 > > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Brian Weeden > Sent: 05 March 2008 15:14 > To: hwg > Subject: [H] CPUs > > > Going to be buying the parts for a new PC next week and I'm pretty > psyched as I'm replacing an Athlon system I built 3-4 years ago and > have been upgrading piecemeal. So I've got a 3000+ Athlon 64 running > on an nForce4 mobo. > > After 6 months of research I am still debating over dual core vs quad > core. I'm going to continue using my existing video card as it's > doing just fine and here's the rest of the parts list: > > Mobo - Asus P5K-E/WIFI-AP > PSU - OCZ Stealthstream 600W > RAM - 2x2GB G.Skill DDR2 800 > DVD - Samsung SH-S203B > Fans - 2x Scythe 120mm > > So I'm debating between these two CPUs: > Q6600 Kentsfield (2.4 Ghz, Quadcore, 65nm) > E8400 Wolfsdale (3.0 Ghz, Dualcore, 45nm) > > They are both within $20 in price so really it comes down to other > features. I know that the majority of programs these days don't take > advantage of more than 2 cores (except for the multimedia big boys > like Photoshop and video encoders). While I will be using the machine > for some A/V work, that won't be a common task. More commonly it will > be for multitasking several programs at once under Windows XP for work > and then gaming. > > The kicker is that I am getting rid of my HTPC and replacing it with a > NAS and the Popcorn Hour settop box. The HTPC used to be my ri
Re: [H] CPUs
I was looking for that quadcore and couldn't find it on Newegg, which is weird, because it comes up at a lot of smaller dealers under Froogle. And there is no mention of the Q9450 on Anand's site or Tom's Hardware, which is really strange if the CPUs have been released (or are close to release). I'm also taking overclocking potential into mind here. I know that there are some on the list who shy away from it but I've overclocked every CPU I've had and always taken advantage of free CPU cycles. And I completely agree with the methodology and risks laid out here (which I am willing to take): http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3251&p=6 Many people are overclocking the E8400 to 4 Ghz with standard voltage and air cooling which is a definite bonus in its book. The Q6600 does alright and can get to 3 Ghz without too much trouble, but runs much hotter and sucks up a ton of power. The issue with the Q9450 is that it is multiplier locked at 8x, meaning the only way to overclock it is to bump up the bus speed which is a much harder prospect. Also keep in mind that the bus speed with a dualcore is essentially 1/2 the bus speed of a dual core. Thanks for the pointer on the mobo - you are definitely right on with that one. On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 10:20 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you expect these new parts to be the foundation of a PC that will last 3-4 > years again (with upgrades) I would certainly look at getting an IX38 chipset. > > Also, take a look at the Q9450, gives you the best of both worlds :) > > If your set on the parts you listed, your CPU choice is based on what you > run now and intend to run in the future...if you are going to run a lot > of VMs, then the quad is almost certainly better. > > VMWare (Workstation at least) limits the number of CPUs to 2 per guest OS > but this should not be an issue in anyway. > > Regards, > > Jason Tozer > Database Analyst > London > Ext 1131 - 3SC.5 > > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Brian Weeden > Sent: 05 March 2008 15:14 > To: hwg > Subject: [H] CPUs > > > Going to be buying the parts for a new PC next week and I'm pretty > psyched as I'm replacing an Athlon system I built 3-4 years ago and > have been upgrading piecemeal. So I've got a 3000+ Athlon 64 running > on an nForce4 mobo. > > After 6 months of research I am still debating over dual core vs quad > core. I'm going to continue using my existing video card as it's > doing just fine and here's the rest of the parts list: > > Mobo - Asus P5K-E/WIFI-AP > PSU - OCZ Stealthstream 600W > RAM - 2x2GB G.Skill DDR2 800 > DVD - Samsung SH-S203B > Fans - 2x Scythe 120mm > > So I'm debating between these two CPUs: > Q6600 Kentsfield (2.4 Ghz, Quadcore, 65nm) > E8400 Wolfsdale (3.0 Ghz, Dualcore, 45nm) > > They are both within $20 in price so really it comes down to other > features. I know that the majority of programs these days don't take > advantage of more than 2 cores (except for the multimedia big boys > like Photoshop and video encoders). While I will be using the machine > for some A/V work, that won't be a common task. More commonly it will > be for multitasking several programs at once under Windows XP for work > and then gaming. > > The kicker is that I am getting rid of my HTPC and replacing it with a > NAS and the Popcorn Hour settop box. The HTPC used to be my ripping, > encoding, burning, and downloading box which was nice because I could > offload those intensive (both time and horsepower) tasks to it and not > have it slow down my main PC that I use for work and gaming. With it > going away, those tasks will now be done on my main PC. I was > envisioning perhaps running 2 or 3 VMs at once doing all these various > tasks. Anyone see problems with that under XP and the ability for > those VMs to use separate CPUs and RAM? Or am I reaching too far and > is this something I can't do under XP? I have several work programs > that are Windows only (along with games) which are the two reasons I > haven't gone to Ubuntu. > > > Brian > > This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged or > otherwise protected from disclosure. > If you are not the intended recipient, please telephone or email the sender > and delete this message and any > attachment from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you must > not copy this message or attachment > or disclose the contents to any other person. > Incoming and outgoing email communications may be monitored by Clifford > Chance, as permitted by applicable > law and regulations. > > For further information about Clifford Chance please see our website at > http://www.cliffordchance.com or refer > to any Clifford Chance office. > > Clifford Chance LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England > & Wales under number OC323571. > The fir
Re: [H] CPUs
I'm on the waiting list on their site, they said 1-2 months. Turns out a lot of people think its a pretty nice product :( On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Robert Martin Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Where are you getting the Popcorn Hour from? Looks pretty nice. > > lopaka > > Brian Weeden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Going to be buying the parts for a > new PC next week and I'm pretty > > > psyched as I'm replacing an Athlon system I built 3-4 years ago and > have been upgrading piecemeal. So I've got a 3000+ Athlon 64 running > on an nForce4 mobo. > > After 6 months of research I am still debating over dual core vs quad > core. I'm going to continue using my existing video card as it's > doing just fine and here's the rest of the parts list: > > Mobo - Asus P5K-E/WIFI-AP > PSU - OCZ Stealthstream 600W > RAM - 2x2GB G.Skill DDR2 800 > DVD - Samsung SH-S203B > Fans - 2x Scythe 120mm > > So I'm debating between these two CPUs: > Q6600 Kentsfield (2.4 Ghz, Quadcore, 65nm) > E8400 Wolfsdale (3.0 Ghz, Dualcore, 45nm) > > They are both within $20 in price so really it comes down to other > features. I know that the majority of programs these days don't take > advantage of more than 2 cores (except for the multimedia big boys > like Photoshop and video encoders). While I will be using the machine > for some A/V work, that won't be a common task. More commonly it will > be for multitasking several programs at once under Windows XP for work > and then gaming. > > The kicker is that I am getting rid of my HTPC and replacing it with a > NAS and the Popcorn Hour settop box. The HTPC used to be my ripping, > encoding, burning, and downloading box which was nice because I could > offload those intensive (both time and horsepower) tasks to it and not > have it slow down my main PC that I use for work and gaming. With it > going away, those tasks will now be done on my main PC. I was > envisioning perhaps running 2 or 3 VMs at once doing all these various > tasks. Anyone see problems with that under XP and the ability for > those VMs to use separate CPUs and RAM? Or am I reaching too far and > is this something I can't do under XP? I have several work programs > that are Windows only (along with games) which are the two reasons I > haven't gone to Ubuntu. > > > Brian > >
Re: [H] CPUs
Where are you getting the Popcorn Hour from? Looks pretty nice. lopaka Brian Weeden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Going to be buying the parts for a new PC next week and I'm pretty psyched as I'm replacing an Athlon system I built 3-4 years ago and have been upgrading piecemeal. So I've got a 3000+ Athlon 64 running on an nForce4 mobo. After 6 months of research I am still debating over dual core vs quad core. I'm going to continue using my existing video card as it's doing just fine and here's the rest of the parts list: Mobo - Asus P5K-E/WIFI-AP PSU - OCZ Stealthstream 600W RAM - 2x2GB G.Skill DDR2 800 DVD - Samsung SH-S203B Fans - 2x Scythe 120mm So I'm debating between these two CPUs: Q6600 Kentsfield (2.4 Ghz, Quadcore, 65nm) E8400 Wolfsdale (3.0 Ghz, Dualcore, 45nm) They are both within $20 in price so really it comes down to other features. I know that the majority of programs these days don't take advantage of more than 2 cores (except for the multimedia big boys like Photoshop and video encoders). While I will be using the machine for some A/V work, that won't be a common task. More commonly it will be for multitasking several programs at once under Windows XP for work and then gaming. The kicker is that I am getting rid of my HTPC and replacing it with a NAS and the Popcorn Hour settop box. The HTPC used to be my ripping, encoding, burning, and downloading box which was nice because I could offload those intensive (both time and horsepower) tasks to it and not have it slow down my main PC that I use for work and gaming. With it going away, those tasks will now be done on my main PC. I was envisioning perhaps running 2 or 3 VMs at once doing all these various tasks. Anyone see problems with that under XP and the ability for those VMs to use separate CPUs and RAM? Or am I reaching too far and is this something I can't do under XP? I have several work programs that are Windows only (along with games) which are the two reasons I haven't gone to Ubuntu. Brian
Re: [H] CPUs
If you expect these new parts to be the foundation of a PC that will last 3-4 years again (with upgrades) I would certainly look at getting an IX38 chipset. Also, take a look at the Q9450, gives you the best of both worlds :) If your set on the parts you listed, your CPU choice is based on what you run now and intend to run in the future...if you are going to run a lot of VMs, then the quad is almost certainly better. VMWare (Workstation at least) limits the number of CPUs to 2 per guest OS but this should not be an issue in anyway. Regards, Jason Tozer Database Analyst London Ext 1131 - 3SC.5 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Brian Weeden Sent: 05 March 2008 15:14 To: hwg Subject: [H] CPUs Going to be buying the parts for a new PC next week and I'm pretty psyched as I'm replacing an Athlon system I built 3-4 years ago and have been upgrading piecemeal. So I've got a 3000+ Athlon 64 running on an nForce4 mobo. After 6 months of research I am still debating over dual core vs quad core. I'm going to continue using my existing video card as it's doing just fine and here's the rest of the parts list: Mobo - Asus P5K-E/WIFI-AP PSU - OCZ Stealthstream 600W RAM - 2x2GB G.Skill DDR2 800 DVD - Samsung SH-S203B Fans - 2x Scythe 120mm So I'm debating between these two CPUs: Q6600 Kentsfield (2.4 Ghz, Quadcore, 65nm) E8400 Wolfsdale (3.0 Ghz, Dualcore, 45nm) They are both within $20 in price so really it comes down to other features. I know that the majority of programs these days don't take advantage of more than 2 cores (except for the multimedia big boys like Photoshop and video encoders). While I will be using the machine for some A/V work, that won't be a common task. More commonly it will be for multitasking several programs at once under Windows XP for work and then gaming. The kicker is that I am getting rid of my HTPC and replacing it with a NAS and the Popcorn Hour settop box. The HTPC used to be my ripping, encoding, burning, and downloading box which was nice because I could offload those intensive (both time and horsepower) tasks to it and not have it slow down my main PC that I use for work and gaming. With it going away, those tasks will now be done on my main PC. I was envisioning perhaps running 2 or 3 VMs at once doing all these various tasks. Anyone see problems with that under XP and the ability for those VMs to use separate CPUs and RAM? Or am I reaching too far and is this something I can't do under XP? I have several work programs that are Windows only (along with games) which are the two reasons I haven't gone to Ubuntu. Brian This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please telephone or email the sender and delete this message and any attachment from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy this message or attachment or disclose the contents to any other person. Incoming and outgoing email communications may be monitored by Clifford Chance, as permitted by applicable law and regulations. For further information about Clifford Chance please see our website at http://www.cliffordchance.com or refer to any Clifford Chance office. Clifford Chance LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England & Wales under number OC323571. The firm's registered office and principal place of business is at 10 Upper Bank Street, London, E14 5JJ. For further details, including a list of members and their professional qualifications, see our website at www.cliffordchance.com. The firm uses the word 'partner' to refer to a member of Clifford Chance LLP or an employee or consultant with equivalent standing and qualifications. The firm is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The Authority's rules can be accessed by clicking on the following link: http://www.sra.org.uk/code-of-conduct.page
[H] CPUs
Going to be buying the parts for a new PC next week and I'm pretty psyched as I'm replacing an Athlon system I built 3-4 years ago and have been upgrading piecemeal. So I've got a 3000+ Athlon 64 running on an nForce4 mobo. After 6 months of research I am still debating over dual core vs quad core. I'm going to continue using my existing video card as it's doing just fine and here's the rest of the parts list: Mobo - Asus P5K-E/WIFI-AP PSU - OCZ Stealthstream 600W RAM - 2x2GB G.Skill DDR2 800 DVD - Samsung SH-S203B Fans - 2x Scythe 120mm So I'm debating between these two CPUs: Q6600 Kentsfield (2.4 Ghz, Quadcore, 65nm) E8400 Wolfsdale (3.0 Ghz, Dualcore, 45nm) They are both within $20 in price so really it comes down to other features. I know that the majority of programs these days don't take advantage of more than 2 cores (except for the multimedia big boys like Photoshop and video encoders). While I will be using the machine for some A/V work, that won't be a common task. More commonly it will be for multitasking several programs at once under Windows XP for work and then gaming. The kicker is that I am getting rid of my HTPC and replacing it with a NAS and the Popcorn Hour settop box. The HTPC used to be my ripping, encoding, burning, and downloading box which was nice because I could offload those intensive (both time and horsepower) tasks to it and not have it slow down my main PC that I use for work and gaming. With it going away, those tasks will now be done on my main PC. I was envisioning perhaps running 2 or 3 VMs at once doing all these various tasks. Anyone see problems with that under XP and the ability for those VMs to use separate CPUs and RAM? Or am I reaching too far and is this something I can't do under XP? I have several work programs that are Windows only (along with games) which are the two reasons I haven't gone to Ubuntu. Brian
