Decision time q6600 or e8400 and which motherboard

lurk3r

Senior member
Oct 26, 2007
981
0
0
I'm not unhappy with my current system, DFI infinity SLi with an opty 170, slightly oc'd to around 2.2, but seeing the full Dell system for $675 and the Microcenter $199 deal on the q6600 got me looking to upgrade.

I mainly use my computer for WoW, but have oblivion, and nwn2

The hard question is what's the best price point for a motherboard and ram?

I was looking at the abit for $60 at newegg, but it dosent seem to support the 45nm chips.

From what I've read here I'm leaning towards the e8400. The problem gets to be the price, if I get much over $400 for the cpu, mb and ram, I might as well grab the dell q6600 with the 24" for $675.

the boards I saw in mirocenter that made the most sense were:

Asus p5k for $139 (gotta be cheaper at the egg)
Gigabyte GA P35 DL3l $115
Gigabyte EP 35c DS3R $189

They also have some 4gb corsair ddr2 800 kits for $79, but didnt seem to have stock, and some 2 Gb DDR2 800's for $29, would using 4 1gb sticks hurt performance? Is there a better deal on ram right now?

I would like the convience of picking up all the parts at microcenter, but have ordered tonnes of stuff from the egg, ewiz etc.

Any reccomendations would be greatly appreciated.
 

Owls

Senior member
Feb 22, 2006
735
0
76
I'll try to answer your questions in order.

If you do gaming then the E8400 is the way to go, if you don't care for SLI there are a multitude of P35/X38 boards available that are very fast. I have the P5K Deluxe sitting in my wife's computer which used to be in my main rig. A smidge pricey but that's what you pay for in terms of quality. That brings me to my next observation about Dell.

Their 24" monitors, if they aren't the UltraSharp, is a poor choice for gaming. You're much better off buying a seperate monitor if you really care for performance or you can just stick with what Dell offers if you just want the extra screen space.

As far as your ram is concerned it depends if you plan to run XP or Vista. If it's XP stick with 2GB, if you want to use Vista, get the 64bit and use 4GB of ram. 4x1 configs are USUALLY OKAY but if you can get the 2x2GB kit.
 

lurk3r

Senior member
Oct 26, 2007
981
0
0
I have XP-64, already, and currently use at 22' acer and a 20' sceptre running off the palit 8800 gt 1gig, there's no immediate need for a new monitor.
 

Owls

Senior member
Feb 22, 2006
735
0
76
In that case, stick with your 22", get 2x2GB kits if you can, and an E8400. Actually I have an E8400 for sale. I'm using the Xeon E3110 currently.
 

QuixoticOne

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2005
1,855
0
0
Don't even think about the e8400, get the Q6600. It is short sighted to say a dual core CPU that overclocks SLIGHTLY higher is a better deal than a QUAD core processor that hits basically similar clock rates, doesn't require expensive RAM to do it, and has TWICE the cache and processing power.

GAMES run *just fine* on the Q6600 + a decent GPU, I know, I have a Q6600 + 8800GT box using cheap DDR2-800 RAM.

On any video resolution 1600x1200 with modern high performance games you will virtually certainly be limited in performance by the GPU not the CPU since typically you'll also have pretty moderate to high quality visual effects enabled etc. which really sucks up the GPU power much moreso than CPU power. There isn't a game out there that doesn't play basically maxed out in realistically useful performance on a Q6600 running at 3GHz coupled with a GPU like the 8800GT or 9600GT. If you really find yourself CPU limited you're either playing with STUPIDLY high frame rates (nobody needs 150 FPS!) or STUPIDLY low resolution (800x600 / 1024x768), or STUPIDLY low quality visual quality settings (everything on low detail, no AA, no AF). Anything higher than that visually and I can guarantee the Q6600 will have nothing but advantages to you since the GPU will limit the frame rate to something reasonable in the 15FPS -> 80FPS range, the CPU will give you smooth fast play, and everything is well balanced. Crysis, WIC, Supreme Commander, many others LOVE quad core CPUs, basically every modern high performance game is great on quad core.
Simpler less demanding games like Wow, Guild Wars, BF2, whatever will work fine on a CPU even much less than either a Q6600/E8400, so CPU speed isn't a factor as long as you have a reasonable GPU better than a X1950 or 8600GTS or so.

Getting most any Q6600 to 3GHz is trivial without any real risk / instability if you want to spend about $20 to $50 on a decent 3rd party heatsink/fan for it, something like or better than the Tuniq Tower 120 or so. It's even possible to go to 3600 MHz on most chips pretty easily, though that gets into more heat and Vcore etc. and really I don't think you'd even notice the benefit in the games you play since 3GHz quad core is MORE than ample as long as you have a decent GPU, and if you have a really under powered GPU, NO CPU model or overclock will help.

GPU? IDK if you are buying, but an 8800GT seems like a good general
area to shop in.. maybe a new 8800GTS-512, maybe a 9600GT, maybe a
3870 after the price drop happens (they just announced one like 2 days ago.. I forget if it's immediately taking effect or not). Something around $140-$240,
lifetime warranty model, XFX, BFG, EVGA brand IMHO.

OS? Well you can get Vista Home Premium Upgrade for like $84 and then go 64 bit if you think you might take advantage of cheap ram and 4 dimm slots to get 6/8GB anytime soon.

Motherboard? I'd go with the cheap $60AR ABIT IP35-E for a Q6600 overclocked to around 3GHz @ 333x9 multiplier and the RAM at 400MHz on its own multiplier or something like that. Not too much OC stress on the MB, the CPU, the RAM, very easy, very inexpensive, very solid. I bought a couple of those MBs to do just that for
family PCs.

Otherwise P5K-E or similar I guess.. I run a P5k deluxe and a P5K-E with Q6600's
and they're solid and work just fine, good stable, decent overclocking, OK BIOS.
Just a lot more expensive than the IP35-E currently is for not many more features.

Nothing really wrong with the GA-P35-DS3 or whatever their P35 / DDR2 raid (DS3R) or non-RAID value (DS3 or DS3L?) models are exactly. I just prefer ASUS and not the ABIT for a great budget board.


RAM? Don't even think about 4x1, go 2x2GB=4GB or 4x2GB=8GB --

PC2-6400 / DDR2-800 is a fine speed for a Q6600, get memory with
5-5-5-15 stock timings, or 4-4-4-12 if you feel like paying extra for not very
much more performance. Prefer strongly memory that has stock voltages of
1.8, 1.9, or 2.0V at 800MHz/5-5-5-15 to memory that takes 2.1 or 2.2V to get there.
You want to pay between $34/2GB to $50/2GB for a single 2GB DIMM at
PC2-6400/5-5-5-15 speeds, lifetime warranty, brand name like
Corsair, Mushkin, Crucial, SuperTalent, Patriot, G.Skill, GEIL, Ballistix, Kingston, etc.
Something with heatspreaders.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820231148
[very fast memory for a Q6600, though you could spend less for slower RAM and be fine]
G.SKILL 4GB(2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model F2-6400CL4D-4GBPK - Retail
Your Price:$99.99
# Cas Latency: 4
# Heat Spreader: Yes
# Timing: 4-4-4-12
# Voltage: 2.0V - 2.1V
# Model #: F2-6400CL4D-4GBPK
# Item #: N82E16820231148

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820231145
[Good match for E8400, faster than needed for Q6600 overclocking really]
G.SKILL 4GB(2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 1000 (PC2 8000) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model F2-8000CL5D-4GBPQ - Retail
Your Price:$99.99
* Cas Latency: 5
* Heat Spreader: Yes
* Timing: 5-5-5-15
* Voltage: 2.0V - 2.1V
* Model #: F2-8000CL5D-4GBPQ
* Item #: N82E16820231145

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820231122
[fine match for Q6600, decent speed/value tradeoff, works great, I use them]
Your Price:$79.99
G.SKILL 4GB(2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel
Kit Desktop Memory Model F2-6400CL5D-4GBPQ - Retail
* Cas Latency: 5
* Heat Spreader: Yes
* Labor: Lifetime limited
* Parts: Lifetime limited
* Model #: F2-6400CL5D-4GBPQ
* Item #: N82E16820231122

http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?name=T8UB2GC5
[buy 2 for 2x2GB = 4GB; works fine in a Q6600, I use 12GB of this stuff, it's about the cheapest you can consistently find at the price level that is reputable brand/quality. Not at all the fastest / most overclockable, but darn near the cheapest respectable RAM at the PC2-6400 speed level, lifetime warranty AFAIK, and you don't really need more than its guaranteed 400MHz 5-5-5-15 speed for a Q6600 since 400 MHz is about all you really want to try to run the Q6600 at (400x9 = 3600 = comfortably decent overclock without insane voltage or cooling or instability risks; I don't hesitate to say this will work FINE since I use a lot of it with Q6600s but considering the other faster lower voltage RAM available from Newegg at not too much higher prices, I'd say consider spending 40-45/2GB stick for better / faster / lower voltage RAM if the cost is minor to you at that level of difference.).
Part#: T8UB2GC5
Package: RETAIL
Manufacturer: Super Talent
Manufacturer Part#: T8UB2GC5
Shipping Weight: 0.10 lbs.(0.05 kg)
T8UB2GC5 $32.96
* Mfr Part Number: T8UB2GC5
* Type: DDR2
* Capacity: 2 GB
* Speed: PC6400 800MHz
* Size & Bit: 128 x 8
* Pins: 240pin
* ECC: No
* Registered: No
* Super RIGID



Originally posted by: lurk3r
I'm not unhappy with my current system, DFI infinity SLi with an opty 170, slightly oc'd to around 2.2, but seeing the full Dell system for $675 and the Microcenter $199 deal on the q6600 got me looking to upgrade.

I mainly use my computer for WoW, but have oblivion, and nwn2

The hard question is what's the best price point for a motherboard and ram?

I was looking at the abit for $60 at newegg, but it dosent seem to support the 45nm chips.

From what I've read here I'm leaning towards the e8400. The problem gets to be the price, if I get much over $400 for the cpu, mb and ram, I might as well grab the dell q6600 with the 24" for $675.

the boards I saw in mirocenter that made the most sense were:

Asus p5k for $139 (gotta be cheaper at the egg)
Gigabyte GA P35 DL3l $115
Gigabyte EP 35c DS3R $189

They also have some 4gb corsair ddr2 800 kits for $79, but didnt seem to have stock, and some 2 Gb DDR2 800's for $29, would using 4 1gb sticks hurt performance? Is there a better deal on ram right now?

I would like the convience of picking up all the parts at microcenter, but have ordered tonnes of stuff from the egg, ewiz etc.

Any reccomendations would be greatly appreciated.

 

lurk3r

Senior member
Oct 26, 2007
981
0
0
Beautiful info, I'm getting the Abit from Newegg, so getting ram there shouldn't hurt, how are these though?

http://www.microcenter.com/sin...tml?product_id=0259027

I do like the idea of a quad core better than a dual, which makes that $60 abit board a very cheap upgrade path, I did see over on hardforms that people have good numbers with the 8300 and the abit too, so one decision's made.

I think I'll go q6600 too, so now just to pick the ram.
 

v8envy

Platinum Member
Sep 7, 2002
2,720
0
0
Also remember that the Dell won't overclock without a BSEL mod, and will have a less potent power supply. Yes, building your own is slightly more expensive (doubly so once you factor in OS costs) but you can get a higher performing PC out of it.

You've made a wise choice, grasshopper. If I was building today it'd be a no brainer: Abit P35-E board, Q6600 from microcenter, 9600GT.
 

Owls

Senior member
Feb 22, 2006
735
0
76
Q6600 is still a fine choice :) I've retired it into a CS Source server :D

Gotta make use of that 20/20mb fiber line somehow!
 

bigpow

Platinum Member
Dec 10, 2000
2,372
2
81
I beg to differ.
a quad at 2.4G (stock) or 3G (max oc) can run games on par with a dual core at 3G (stock) or 4G (avg oc, not even max oc)?
That's really funny.

honestly, I don't know which one will give you bigger e-penis, a quad core at stock or an overclocked dual core.
 

jdoggg12

Platinum Member
Aug 20, 2005
2,685
11
81
So lets assume you're using this to play crysis... who wants to take a guess on which will do better...

q6600 @ 3ghz
e8400 @ 4ghz

....?
 

QuixoticOne

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2005
1,855
0
0
UPDATE! ALERT!
Ignore the stuff I mention below / before on RAM, HERE is the RAM deal of the month:

WHOA! DING! DING! DING! ALERT! ALERT! GET THIS! GET YOUR UNCLE TO GET THIS!
GET YOUR DENTIST TO GET THIS! $57/4G for this quality memory is a DEAL, better than anything else we've mentioned!

We have a new price/performace winner for today:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820220227
Patriot Extreme Performance 4GB(2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory - Retail

Patriot 4GB(2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Memory - Retail
Image Viewer

Patriot 4GB(2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Memory - Retail Patriot 4GB(2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Memory - Retail

Original Price: $86.99
You Save: $10.00
$76.99
($56.99 after $20.00 Mail-In Rebate)
3 Business Day Shipping $5.58
(Not available in HI, AK and PR)
In Stock
Model
Brand Patriot
Series Extreme Performance
Model PDC24G6400ELK
Type 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM
Tech Spec
Capacity 4GB(2 x 2GB)
Speed DDR2 800 (PC2 6400)
Cas Latency 5
Timing 5-5-5-12
Voltage 2.0V
Heat Spreader Yes
Features Bladed aluminum heat shields
to improve module stability
RoHS Compliant
EPP Ready
Recommend Use High Performance or Gaming Memory



Originally posted by: lurk3r
Beautiful info, I'm getting the Abit from Newegg, so getting ram there shouldn't hurt, how are these though?

http://www.microcenter.com/sin...tml?product_id=0259027

I do like the idea of a quad core better than a dual, which makes that $60 abit board a very cheap upgrade path, I did see over on hardforms that people have good numbers with the 8300 and the abit too, so one decision's made.

I think I'll go q6600 too, so now just to pick the ram.

Memory Speed DDR2-800 (PC-6400)
Supply Voltage 1.8 Volts - 2.0 Volts
Latency Advanced Latency Settings (5-6-6-15)
$70AR.

Those are OK. Having to run 2V to get 5-6-6-15 @ 800 MHz is a bit on the slow side, you'd really be wanting to see 5-5-5-15/800MHz @ 2V or preferably 1.8-1.9V ideally. I think they're probably just about the same overall performance of a stick as the $33/2GB eWIZ ram -- the eWiz takes 0.1 more volts (in theory/spec), but delivers a 5-5-5-15 faster timing set for that difference. So I could say the OCZ you mentioned here would WORK, I'd have to say the eWiz T8UB2GC5 @ $66 is preferable due to no rebate hassles and slightly higher speed, or one of the faster / lower voltage DIMMS would be preferable in pure performance (but at usually somewhat higher costs).

 

QuixoticOne

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2005
1,855
0
0
Originally posted by: jdoggg12
So lets assume you're using this to play crysis... who wants to take a guess on which will do better...

q6600 @ 3ghz
e8400 @ 4ghz

....?

There are lots of games out there besides Crysis for which it's utterly irrelevant -- both are OVERKILL.

For Crysis and a couple other CPU hogs -- I say both are FINE choices. The GPU is the limiting factor.

Show me a real world significant differenct in FPS / playability between the same system with the same GPU & settings comparing Q6600@3G vs E8400@4G where you're playing in medium high to high quality visuals at 1600x1200 or better resolution. I don't think so.



 

Owls

Senior member
Feb 22, 2006
735
0
76
Originally posted by: fritzfield
Originally posted by: Owls
Actually I have an E8400 for sale.

I don't know how to PM you. Can you PM me re: your e8400?

You need to turn your PMs on :) Can't send you anything otherwise! Can look me up on AIM: Goawayokay
 

Owls

Senior member
Feb 22, 2006
735
0
76
Originally posted by: QuixoticOne
Originally posted by: jdoggg12
So lets assume you're using this to play crysis... who wants to take a guess on which will do better...

q6600 @ 3ghz
e8400 @ 4ghz

....?

There are lots of games out there besides Crysis for which it's utterly irrelevant -- both are OVERKILL.

For Crysis and a couple other CPU hogs -- I say both are FINE choices. The GPU is the limiting factor.

Show me a real world significant differenct in FPS / playability between the same system with the same GPU & settings comparing Q6600@3G vs E8400@4G where you're playing in medium high to high quality visuals at 1600x1200 or better resolution. I don't think so.

Aside from MS Flight Simulator X, no other game on the market takes advantage of quad core. And even that MSFX only takes advantage of the cores for faster terrain loading so there you have it.

 

lightzout

Member
Nov 1, 2004
35
0
66
Everything I have read at this site and others regarding gaming performance comparisons between a e8xxx cpu and the conroe quad cores has unequivocally favored the e8xxx. Not to stir the pot because they are both great products and one may favor the motherboard and memory you want to use but strictly in terms of gaming a quad core adds no advantages over the core2s in the same price range so read up and take your time before you buy. You may have to wait to get the one you want anyway.
 

QuixoticOne

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2005
1,855
0
0

Here's a specific benchmark:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...core2quad-q9300_9.html
Crysis 1024x768 medium quality
E8500 @ 4.3 GHz = 82.8 FPS
Q6600 @ 3.6 GHz = 78.03 FPS

You will notice that either of them deliver perfectly decent frame rates, probably
in excess of what I would suggest using. The maximum difference you could ever see is less than 5 FPS, and realistically it will be a lot less than that.

In the real world you typically would prefer to play in 1280x1024 or 1600x1200 or similar resolutions. In the real world you'd probably use a better mix of Very High quality, High Quality, and Medium Quality settings so get the best visual appearance while optimizing smoothness and performance at the same time with intelligent trade-offs. In which cases the GPU will be WAY WAY WAY more limiting of a factor in FPS than the CPU. I dare say you would not see any noticable or measurable difference in those more realistic situations between the Q6600 and E8500 systems.
Keep in mind you're guaranteed to see LESS difference in FPS due to the CPU the more resolution and video quality you use, so whatever the exact numbers, the benchmark proves it'll be less than 5 FPS relative to 80FPS and so less than 6%.

Obviously an E8400 would perform even LESS well than an E8400, so again, the difference between the Q6600 and E8400 will be even less than the above.

Now also realize that the Q6600 costs significantly less than the E8500 if you get the Microcenter or similar deals, in fact it costs the same as the E8400 with the distinct advantage that the Q6600 is IN STOCK whereas it's very hard to even FIND an E8400 in stock.

Now also realize that the motherboard and RAM you'd need for the Q6600 likely costs significantly less than the E8400/ E8500 system configuration would have to be.

Now also realize that a 4.3 GHz OC on the E8500 is probably a bit more than most people would want to do or be able to do, and certainly one would not be unreasonable to say one might get a bit less on an E8400 given a particular budget of motherboard / RAM / heatsink / PSU / case not all being uber-overclocking super high end stuff. To be fair, one could probably say that maybe 3.0-3.3GHz is also a cheaper / easier overclock for the Q6600 too, so let's say in "reality" one is really talking about a Q6600 @ 3.0-3.2 GHz vs. an E8400 @ 3.8-4.0GHz and call it a performance draw in this factor, though realize that the system components are probably going to cost more for the E8400 at that speed (RAM, MB, heatsink, case, ...).

Now also realize that even though the performance difference between the Q6600 OC'ed and the E8400 OC'ed isn't significant in software that is pretty single or dual threaded, there are programs that take better advantage of threads / cores, and for those programs the OC'ed Q6600 will blow away the OC'ed E8500 no matter what.

Now also realize that in the months to come there will be more and more programs that DO take even more efficient advantage of 4 cores than they do today, in which case, you're getting a lot more bang for the buck from the $200 Q6600 vs. the $200 E8400.
Examples, CINEBENCH R10, 3dS Max 9, Mainconcept H.264 encoder, 3D Mark06 CPU, all MUCH faster for the Quad than the E8500.
The list of programs running faster on the quad will only ever increase.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...core2quad-q9300_5.html

Originally posted by: Owls
Aside from MS Flight Simulator X, no other game on the market takes advantage of quad core. And even that MSFX only takes advantage of the cores for faster terrain loading so there you have it.

Actually lots of games benefit from quad cores vs. dual cores, I've got a list of several benchmarks and games on my other PC.
For instance, notice UT3 favors the quad here:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...core2quad-q9300_9.html


But the point is they sell games and applications to work well on most people's reasonably average PCs. Therefore either a good dual or a good quad will work reasonably fine, and if you get a high end dual or high end quad (which they basically all are by definition relative to mainstream PCs), you'll be well ahead of the curve of satisfactory CPU power for any application.

If you look at some of the other games benchmarked there the actual higher
performance score may go to the E8500 @ 4.3 vs the Q6600 @ 3.6, but the actual difference in performance is totally irrelevant.
WIC 110FPS vs 103FPS -- who cares -- they both are faster than necessary.
Qake4 211FPS vs 188FPS -- who cares -- they both are faster than necessary.
You'd never actually play in that low quality / low resolution to even see such a difference in the real world, you'd play in better quality / resolution at which point the GPU is the factor and the CPUs perform equally well.

Now add up the $60 you'd save on a motherboard, $30 you'd save on RAM going with the Q6600 vs trying to get an E8500 to 4.3GHz and spend that $90 on, say, a better overclocked or better model video card or whatever, and voila, you just bought more FPS for the Q6600 build than the E8500 could deliver.

Anyway this isn't a religious debate, the real answer is the E8400, E8500, Q6600, Q9300, Q9450 are all fine CPUs and more than adequate for any game or any program you could want to use them for today and in the near future.

But given the E8400 = $199, and the Q6600 = $199, and they both do what you need them to do just fine, but the Q6600 can be like 25% to 100% faster for certain things you do now or in the future, I think it's clear what the better value is.

It is like having a choice of a truck with a V4 engine or a truck with a V8 engine but both get the same gas mileage economy and both cost the same. Both will do the speed limit and as much faster as you could reasonably want to go when they're unloaded. But with a heavy load your V8 can do things that the V4 couldn't possibly touch like haul a big trailer up a mountain or whatever. Maybe you don't need to do that right now, but if you pick the V8 at least you CAN do it if you ever need to, and it doesn't cost anything extra.

 

lurk3r

Senior member
Oct 26, 2007
981
0
0
I grabbed the Abit mb, and the http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820231122 newegg ram, will snag the quad core today or tomorrow from MS, for what I use it for both chips will be basically identical, I do always have 2 screens going, not sure if I'd use all 4 cores, but more cores seems to be the way the industry is expanding, not faster.

This is going to be a huge upgrade from my opty 170, and it will come in at around $380 to double my ram, and go from a dual 2.1 to a quad 2.4, which I'll probably oc to 2.6-2.8, very nice bang for buck, especially if i can get $200-300 for my old setup.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Originally posted by: jdoggg12
So lets assume you're using this to play crysis... who wants to take a guess on which will do better...

q6600 @ 3ghz
e8400 @ 4ghz

....?

With the same video card, at higher resolutions that most people are using (say 16x12), I bet they are about the same. (+/- a few percent)

EDIT: I guess everyone else already beat me to it
 

QuixoticOne

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2005
1,855
0
0
Awesome, sounds like it'll be a nice system for you. Enjoy.

If you use the Intel stock Boxed Cooler HSF you MIGHT be able to stay within decent temperatures (say 65C fully loaded) at 2.8.. it's worth a try unless you have a better cooler or know of a particularly good deal for like $21 or less. Though AFAIK there are several models around $21 that may beat the Intel retail cooler handily. The Freezer Pro 7 64 or whatever comes to mind, though I forget its ratings. Scythe Ninja something or other? Sometimes the GEMINI-II is really cheap but not always.
Check svc.com, directron.com, zipzoomfly.com, newegg.com, jab-tech.com, eWiz.com, et. al. There are some good cooler reviews with performance comparisons to stock Intel coolers on Anandtech, TomsHardware, several others.. xbit? etc.

It would be a decent idea to get a cheap $5-$6 120mm fan (or I suppose a 60mm or 90mm one if you have space issues) and zip-tie it so it blows across the northbridge and PWM/power heatsinks on the ABIT. They get warm (as all motherboards will), though at 2.8G it shouldn't be THAT bad... your choice. I just tend to pick up stuff like fans etc. when they're on major sale so I'll have a couple ready when I build / replace. jab-tech had the Yate Loon D12SL low speed (47cfm IIRC) fans for some really low price like $3.80 or $4.50 or something like that when last I checked, that was the best deal for that model (and anything comparable IMHO) I found on a consistent basis. That model is decently quiet and efficient and very cheap at the right places.

I dare say that some ceramique / arctic silver 5 / MX-1 / MX-2 or similar applied correctly on a clean CPU and HSF base would improve your CPU temperatures somewhat over going with the generic paste / thermal tape that comes pre-applied to some heatsinks e.g. the stock Intel model. Though if you get a super-stock HSF from one of the OC popular models I suppose that whatever grease they throw in its package can't be too bad, and I wouldn't worry about using that up to maybe 3.2G with a decent upgraded HSF, though I'd switch to something better like Shin-Etsu or AS5 or MX1 or so if I wanted to get to 3.3-4.0.

Personally I swear by cleaning the IHS/HSF base with IPA, wiping all clean with a lintless cloth, spreading paste over the HSF base with your hand gloved inside a ziplock bag so you don't touch the paste / metal, wiping the paste off the HSF base with a coffee filter until there's nothing but a hazy almost invisible film left then don't touch it with anything, no dust.
Spread a line of paste out on the IHS with the edge of a credit card until it is of totally uniform thickness just about the thickness of a piece of paper all over the IHS and scrape any excess away from the sides. Mate, mount, tighten, etc.

Remember the anti-static wrist strap linked to the case which should always be grounded to the wall with the hard-power switch off, and keep the CPU/RAM/MB all within reach so you don't have to walk/slide around to get to them and generate static.
Laying it all out on some aluminium foil with a grounded case/PSU on top of that isn't too bad for a cheapo work area.

And if you do get a bolt-on or large HSF remember you will probably want to leave the MB on the table, install the RAM first (if the slots will be hard to reach), install the CPU, the HSF, then the power /fan cables if they'll be hard to reach, then put the MB into the case and screw it down so you don't have to play "Operation" in a tight space with impossible contortions etc.

Don't worry you'll use all 4 cores even without trying... anti-virus, the OS, a couple taskbar utilities running, a game, media player, PDF program, office app, web browser, etc. etc. all take at least a good fraction of one core when they're busy and it adds up.

Originally posted by: lurk3r
I grabbed the Abit mb, and the http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820231122 newegg ram, will snag the quad core today or tomorrow from MS, for what I use it for both chips will be basically identical, I do always have 2 screens going, not sure if I'd use all 4 cores, but more cores seems to be the way the industry is expanding, not faster.

This is going to be a huge upgrade from my opty 170, and it will come in at around $380 to double my ram, and go from a dual 2.1 to a quad 2.4, which I'll probably oc to 2.6-2.8, very nice bang for buck, especially if i can get $200-300 for my old setup.

 

TheDoc9

Senior member
May 26, 2006
264
0
0
Hi everyone, just picked up on this thread and the memory recommendations caught my attention. I recently ordered an X48 mb and a xeon x3350 but also got 4x1 GB sticks. Someone else recommended this in another forum but I've read several comments here saying I need to get 2x2 sticks instead and should RMA the others.

What is the reason for going 2x2 sticks? Are the 4x1's hotter/harder to overclock?

Doc
 

lurk3r

Senior member
Oct 26, 2007
981
0
0
Originally posted by: QuixoticOne
Awesome, sounds like it'll be a nice system for you. Enjoy.

If you use the Intel stock Boxed Cooler HSF you MIGHT be able to stay within decent temperatures (say 65C fully loaded) at 2.8.. it's worth a try unless you have a better cooler or know of a particularly good deal for like $21 or less. Though AFAIK there are several models around $21 that may beat the Intel retail cooler handily. The Freezer Pro 7 64 or whatever comes to mind, though I forget its ratings. Scythe Ninja something or other? Sometimes the GEMINI-II is really cheap but not always.
Check svc.com, directron.com, zipzoomfly.com, newegg.com, jab-tech.com, eWiz.com, et. al. There are some good cooler reviews with performance comparisons to stock Intel coolers on Anandtech, TomsHardware, several others.. xbit? etc.

It would be a decent idea to get a cheap $5-$6 120mm fan (or I suppose a 60mm or 90mm one if you have space issues) and zip-tie it so it blows across the northbridge and PWM/power heatsinks on the ABIT. They get warm (as all motherboards will), though at 2.8G it shouldn't be THAT bad... your choice. I just tend to pick up stuff like fans etc. when they're on major sale so I'll have a couple ready when I build / replace. jab-tech had the Yate Loon D12SL low speed (47cfm IIRC) fans for some really low price like $3.80 or $4.50 or something like that when last I checked, that was the best deal for that model (and anything comparable IMHO) I found on a consistent basis. That model is decently quiet and efficient and very cheap at the right places.

I dare say that some ceramique / arctic silver 5 / MX-1 / MX-2 or similar applied correctly on a clean CPU and HSF base would improve your CPU temperatures somewhat over going with the generic paste / thermal tape that comes pre-applied to some heatsinks e.g. the stock Intel model. Though if you get a super-stock HSF from one of the OC popular models I suppose that whatever grease they throw in its package can't be too bad, and I wouldn't worry about using that up to maybe 3.2G with a decent upgraded HSF, though I'd switch to something better like Shin-Etsu or AS5 or MX1 or so if I wanted to get to 3.3-4.0.

Personally I swear by cleaning the IHS/HSF base with IPA, wiping all clean with a lintless cloth, spreading paste over the HSF base with your hand gloved inside a ziplock bag so you don't touch the paste / metal, wiping the paste off the HSF base with a coffee filter until there's nothing but a hazy almost invisible film left then don't touch it with anything, no dust.
Spread a line of paste out on the IHS with the edge of a credit card until it is of totally uniform thickness just about the thickness of a piece of paper all over the IHS and scrape any excess away from the sides. Mate, mount, tighten, etc.

Remember the anti-static wrist strap linked to the case which should always be grounded to the wall with the hard-power switch off, and keep the CPU/RAM/MB all within reach so you don't have to walk/slide around to get to them and generate static.
Laying it all out on some aluminium foil with a grounded case/PSU on top of that isn't too bad for a cheapo work area.

And if you do get a bolt-on or large HSF remember you will probably want to leave the MB on the table, install the RAM first (if the slots will be hard to reach), install the CPU, the HSF, then the power /fan cables if they'll be hard to reach, then put the MB into the case and screw it down so you don't have to play "Operation" in a tight space with impossible contortions etc.

Don't worry you'll use all 4 cores even without trying... anti-virus, the OS, a couple taskbar utilities running, a game, media player, PDF program, office app, web browser, etc. etc. all take at least a good fraction of one core when they're busy and it adds up.

Originally posted by: lurk3r
I grabbed the Abit mb, and the http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820231122 newegg ram, will snag the quad core today or tomorrow from MS, for what I use it for both chips will be basically identical, I do always have 2 screens going, not sure if I'd use all 4 cores, but more cores seems to be the way the industry is expanding, not faster.

This is going to be a huge upgrade from my opty 170, and it will come in at around $380 to double my ram, and go from a dual 2.1 to a quad 2.4, which I'll probably oc to 2.6-2.8, very nice bang for buck, especially if i can get $200-300 for my old setup.

I've actually got a coolmaster drive bay liquid system, picked it up from the egg a couple years back for around $70, works very well for my modest newbie oc :)
 

lurk3r

Senior member
Oct 26, 2007
981
0
0
Originally posted by: TheDoc9
Hi everyone, just picked up on this thread and the memory recommendations caught my attention. I recently ordered an X48 mb and a xeon x3350 but also got 4x1 GB sticks. Someone else recommended this in another forum but I've read several comments here saying I need to get 2x2 sticks instead and should RMA the others.

What is the reason for going 2x2 sticks? Are the 4x1's hotter/harder to overclock?

Doc

One thing I can say for sure its it will take more power and generate more heat with 4 boards than 2, and I know with DDR, if you use 4 sticks you can only run at 333, only with 2 will it run 400.
 

QuixoticOne

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2005
1,855
0
0
IMHO the MAIN reason one might want to go 2x2G rather than 4x1 is to allow the possibility to add more RAM in the future to get 6G or 8G without wasting any memory DIMMs one already has.

Secondarily, yeah, 4 DIMMs tend to overclock slightly less well than 2 DIMMs but it depends a lot on the motherboard and of course on the DIMMs.. I wouldn't worry about this factor much unless you're really going for every last 1% of performance at any cost... 4x1 works.. 2x2 works... both will likely OC decently well in a decent MB like yours surely is.

The only other factor is value given the price/performance... Now 2GB capacity DIMMs are not so much more expensive per the GB than 1GB capacity DIMMs so there's less of a price disadvantage to going with 2GB capacity units.

Your CPU and motherboard are pretty good and in theory you'd hope to perhaps get to at least 450MHz on the CPU clock if not approaching or exceeding 500 MHz.

So if you bought any PC2-8000/DDR2-1000 rated RAM or faster the RAM is pretty much guaranteed to get you into the realm of a decent overclock. And since you'd be operating the RAM inside of its own specification, it couldn't really fail to deliver unless the RAM is defective or you have a motherboard compatibility issue with those sticks and in either case you get your money back on something or other if there's no good fix/workaround.

If you bought DDR2-800 memory and plan to OC it up to 440+MHz well I guess that just depends on what sticks / motherboard you have as to how well it'll OC for you... I'd say it'd be easier to OC a good fast quality set of 2x2s than 4x1 in that scenario when you're trying to go above the RAM's specified operating frequency considerably. But I wouldn't get too uptight about it.. worst that'll happen likely is that the RAM will perform up to its spec and then maybe 10% or more beyond that...



Originally posted by: TheDoc9
Hi everyone, just picked up on this thread and the memory recommendations caught my attention. I recently ordered an X48 mb and a xeon x3350 but also got 4x1 GB sticks. Someone else recommended this in another forum but I've read several comments here saying I need to get 2x2 sticks instead and should RMA the others.

What is the reason for going 2x2 sticks? Are the 4x1's hotter/harder to overclock?

Doc