Jump to content

Core Duo - wow


Recommended Posts

wow, didn't know that... but my point was - maybe not in real life, but for 3d rendering - four cores could be amazing (probably the price too :p) And i was quite huge AMD fan, before Core Duo showed up.... hopefully AMD will have something to show too. Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hey guys. I am still fighting with the new computer setup. I'm using Viz2007 and Vray 1.5. So far I am looking at Windows XP64 and about 3 gigs of RAM and the Nvidia Quadro 1500.

 

From all that I have gathered, the new core duo desktop processors are faster than the AMD chips in the same price range? Can anyone recommend or point me in the direction of choosing the fastest processor for the price. I was looking at the price range of about $300-$350 per processor (U.S.).

 

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At that price you could get Core2 Duo E6600's. If you are building this yourself you can overclock those, if you work on that a bit you should be able to get them to 3GHz or so using good RAM and a decent heatsink and fan while maintaining stability, and that would be faster than an AMD at any price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no boards which support two core2duo processors. If you want a quad core machine, you either need to purchase a xeon woodcrest 51xx system, or wait for the core2quadro processors to become available later this year (at a hefty price premium).

 

If you want to avoid the premiums, build a core2duo system now, with an 975 or 965 chipset (that has been verified to work with core2quadro), then upgrade to a quad core next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 265 is only 1.8GHz. I bet you can overclock an E6600 to the point where one of them is about the same speed as dual-dual 265's without much trouble. Maybe a little slower, but not much, it would still be very impressive considering it's a single socket at consumer prices vs. a dual socket, and it would have a good upgrade path (wait until consumer quad cores come out and get one of those).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Well the highest I could get before I had to go home was 350x8 which equals 2.8ghz. And that is just booting up - no telling if it is actually stable or not. I did run Prime95 but not long enough to really determine long term stability.

 

Once I change the fsb to 360 or higher I get 3 beeps at post which, according to the manual, means that there is no ram. When I change the jumper to get back into bios setup, all my settings are just as I left them except for the ram performance settings. The voltage for some reason keeps getting set back to the default 1.84 instead of the 2.04 that I had set it at. So that is a little bit of a mystery to me.

 

I am at home now so I can't look up the other bios settings, but tomorrow I will list them and see if anybody has suggestions. My goal is to get it stable at around 3ghz. I know the motherboard and processor is good for it - I just worry a little bit about the power supply and ram.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That Xeon is 3GHz and that Core2 is 2.66GHz, both would be 4 cores and they have basically the same architecture, so the Xeon would be faster. But not by much and it would cost a heck of a lot more, the MB would cost more, the RAM would cost more, and overclocking... I don't know if you can, you'd need to look that up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the highest I could get before I had to go home was 350x8 which equals 2.8ghz. And that is just booting up - no telling if it is actually stable or not. I did run Prime95 but not long enough to really determine long term stability.

 

Once I change the fsb to 360 or higher I get 3 beeps at post which, according to the manual, means that there is no ram. When I change the jumper to get back into bios setup, all my settings are just as I left them except for the ram performance settings. The voltage for some reason keeps getting set back to the default 1.84 instead of the 2.04 that I had set it at. So that is a little bit of a mystery to me.

 

I am at home now so I can't look up the other bios settings, but tomorrow I will list them and see if anybody has suggestions. My goal is to get it stable at around 3ghz. I know the motherboard and processor is good for it - I just worry a little bit about the power supply and ram.

 

Sounds like you spazzed the RAM. 360 would be above spec for 667MHz RAM. (By the math that gets the 667, you're at 720. By the math that gets the 1066 or 1333 they put on the CPU description, you're at 1440.) Try it with more conservative timing numbers (not the MHz but the #-#-#-#).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So today the fastest I got windows to boot up at was 3.04ghz. I tried boosting the ram voltage to 2.0 and i think thats what made it possible. I've had to clock it down though, now at around 3ghz, but unable to get stable tests in Prime95. I think it is memory related, since the processor tests in Prime95 seem to work good, as well as the TAT (intels thermal analysis tool). But when I do the memory intense testing seems to be when it reports errors and/or crashes. So I'm not sure if further tweaking will yield better results or if i still need better ram. I kept the timings the same at 5-5-5-15 only because i wasn't sure what else to try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I think mine really is spec'd to 1.8.

 

http://www.patriotmem.com/products/detailp.jsp?prodline=3&catid=2&prodgroupid=37&id=315&type=1

 

Looking back, I think I bought the cheapy stuff. I'm not saying Patriot memory is cheap. I've actually used it a lot with no problems and seems to have a really good rep. But since I am trying to o.c. almost 50%, this lower spec. memory just might not be up to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it must be the little ram that could. I dropped the fsb down to 368x8, running dual Prime test now and seems to be going really well so far. I think if I can squeek by at these speeds I am not going to bother with replacing the memory. This puts it just past the speed of the x6800 which is almost $1000. Not a bad deal from a $225 e6400.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...