- Sep 13, 2002
- 2,186
- 0
- 0
maybe you are right on that one. I haven't looked at many overclocked i5 articles. I did come across this one from Anandtech using the i7 870 (3.8GHz w 1.3V difference being around 34W):
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3640&p=2
it explains how with their sample, going over 1.3V created a lot more heat.
But if you can reason that a dual core is sufficient for "practical" gaming, why would you specifically want a 4GHz quad core (vs. a 3.8GHz one for example)? And why would you want to overclock at all? It would be like burning the money that you worked so hard for.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3640&p=2
it explains how with their sample, going over 1.3V created a lot more heat.
But if you can reason that a dual core is sufficient for "practical" gaming, why would you specifically want a 4GHz quad core (vs. a 3.8GHz one for example)? And why would you want to overclock at all? It would be like burning the money that you worked so hard for.
I never said there wasn't a game that could utilize four cores.
Smart money is on the Core i3 especially when Tower cooler and extra energy drain of a 45nm quad core won't help frame rates one bit.
Last edited: