Re: [H] CPUs
Personally I highly recommend the E8400, I just delivered a third machine using one yesterday. Mine gets the special treatment though :) http://chryx.shacknet.nu/wolfdale4250.png On 5 Mar 2008, at 16:23, Brian Weeden wrote: 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=3251p=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
Re: [H] CPUs
On 5 Mar 2008, at 19:04, Winterlight 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? Wolfdales have 6MB L2 cache faster divider hardware SSE4 45nm process oodles of OC headroom if you like that sort of thing. Performance compared to Conroe at the same clock http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/intel-wolfdale_5.html#sect0 The real party trick for Wolfdale though, is the thermals: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/intel-wolfdale_11.html#sect0 33.4w at load, from a 3.16Ghz part.. that's high end laptop territory right there. -JB
Re: [H] CPUs
Sold! Now I just need to find a place that has them in stock. --- Brian Weeden Technical Consultant Secure World Foundation Sent from my iPhone On 6-Mar-08, at 3:53 AM, James Boswell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5 Mar 2008, at 19:04, Winterlight 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? Wolfdales have 6MB L2 cache faster divider hardware SSE4 45nm process oodles of OC headroom if you like that sort of thing. Performance compared to Conroe at the same clock http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/intel-wolfdale_5.html#sect0 The real party trick for Wolfdale though, is the thermals: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/intel-wolfdale_11.html#sect0 33.4w at load, from a 3.16Ghz part.. that's high end laptop territory right there. -JB
[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
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
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=3251p=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
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=3251p=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
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] 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)
