P67 vs H67 tradeoffs

[Hogan773]

I am struggling with the best way to look at the whole P67/H67/QuickSync/OC conundrum. Interested in how others are looking at it. It appears from the chatter that getting a P67 is a "foregone conclusion" for most people.

I am not a gamer. I will be doing some DVD authoring/transcoding/etc.

I see the following:

H67:
Pro - I can use QuickSync (if future software I'm using allows it)
Pro - I can save money by not buying a discrete GPU
Pro - H67 mobo cheaper
Con - No overclocking beyond the limited Turbo overclock which could take the 2600 to 4.3max I believe
Con - more limited selection of ATX mobos.
Con - memory spd limited to 1333

P67:
Pro - I can OC to heart's content
Pro - can run my 1600 memory at 1600
Con - will spend $50-75 for a lower to midlevel GPU
Con - P67 mobo more expensive
Pro - more choices of mobo

I guess when I cut through it all, it comes down to a tradeoff between OCing the chip BEYOND 4.3ghz (so you're talking about 4.3 going to 4.6ish) vs settling for a weaker integrated GPU (I was targeting a GT240 or 5570-class card which would beat Intel's HD3000) but having the potential option to speed up transcoding via QuickSync. AM I CORRECT in saying that any SB chip, including a K-series, can do the limited turbo overclocking on an H67 board???

How do you others look at this? Beyond E-peen stuff, I'm not sure whether I'm going to push an OC as far as humanly possible anyway just because I generally keep PCs for 5 years, and I don't want to run it at max Voltage and kill my chip in 2 yrs. And for me, most of the actual benefit of an OC-ed machine would be for those times when I am doing video transcoding or DVD authoring. Surfing the net doesn't care about overclocking. And I THINK that running memory at 1333 vs 1600 doesn't matter much. So I'm comparing potential benefit of QS vs potential instances where I might benefit from running the CPU at 4.6 vs 4.3ghz, let's say.

But if QS becomes something that is only supported in a few special software packages, then I'm getting all worried about a feature that wouldn't even get used, and I've made compromises in picking the H67 board.

Help.....what would YOU do (and more importantly, WHY)

 

[thedosbox]

AM I CORRECT in saying that any SB chip, including a K-series, can do the limited turbo overclocking on an H67 board???

Yes, my 2500 has hit 3.6 with three instances of folding running on a GA-H67MA-UD2H.

But if QS becomes something that is only supported in a few special software packages, then I'm getting all worried about a feature that wouldn't even get used, and I've made compromises in picking the H67 board.

In which case buy a P67 board, though given Intel's projections of SB's market share, I suspect there will be plenty of support.

 

[InternetUser]

Yes, my 2500 has hit 3.6 with three instances of folding running on a GA-H67MA-UD2H.

Is your cpu a 2500 or 2500K ?

In case if it's K-series, can u increase the multiplier at all besides turbo?

The reason im asking is because there is an overclocked system for sale, 2500k and same mobo as yours, and I'm just curious how they did it.

Thanks.

 

[thedosbox]

2500 non-K

 

[Hogan773]

and if I understand correctly YOU (the user) sets the limited turbo overclocking, which can step up 1-4 CPU speeds depending how many cores are active BEYOND the normal turbo range. Isnt 3.6 within the normal turbo range of the 2500?

 

[InternetUser]

hogan, i think turbo comes out of the box. you dont have to set anything up, as long as you leave it on auto.

thedosbox, how quickly does it go to 4.1 on singlethreaded apps? shoots up right away, or waits until a certain load level? afaik, it is just the P0 processor state and can be set by software while in OS, or something else entirely?

 

[PreferLinux]

Can you increase the multiplier at all?

 

[thedosbox]

These are the default settings:

Items in square brackets can be changed, but modifying the clock ratio (i.e. multiplier) does not change the turbo ratios. Regular turbo kicks in automatically with no intervention from me.

I'm not an overclocker, so you'll have to wait for someone else to experiment

 

[Hogan773]

According to the Anandtech review (picture above) you should be able to get 400mhz higher than the stated turbo range by using "limited overclock" (this is above and beyond the normal Turbo)

I cant tell from your BIOS shot where you would set that however - yours seems to match the normal Turbo range.

What happens if you type in 35, for example, to the CPU multiplier box. Will the 4 numbers listed in the turbo states all increase by 2? (vs the 33 multiplier you have in there now?) If so, then that's prob the trick....you can prob increase that first box up to 37 on your machine.

Can you let us know if that is the case?

 

[thedosbox]

I cant tell from your BIOS shot where you would set that however - yours seems to match the normal Turbo range.

What happens if you type in 35, for example, to the CPU multiplier box. Will the 4 numbers listed in the turbo states all increase by 2? (vs the 33 multiplier you have in there now?) If so, then that's prob the trick....you can prob increase that first box up to 37 on your machine.

Can you let us know if that is the case?

As noted previously, turbo values remain unchanged after entering 35 into the top box "CPU clock ratio".

FWIW, I watched the frequency and multiplier in CPU-Z while a single folding instance was running. The frequency would peak at 3.7 (with a corresponding multiplier of 37), but drop back down to 3.5 or 3.6 for awhile before peaking again.

 

[Hogan773]

As noted previously, turbo values remain unchanged after entering 35 into the top box "CPU clock ratio".

FWIW, I watched the frequency and multiplier in CPU-Z while a single folding instance was running. The frequency would peak at 3.7 (with a corresponding multiplier of 37), but drop back down to 3.5 or 3.6 for awhile before peaking again.

Ok thanks. 3.3 to 3.7 would be the "normal" turbo range for your CPU, so I guess its working as expected. Interested to figure out how to access that 400mhz "Limited OC" that Anand/Intel clearly lays out on that slide.

 

[caseblue]

Based on the title and OP, I was happy to find this thread but unfortunately it's not very well developed yet. I too am in the non-gamer user group and don't know what direction to go here with SB. For the past few weeks, I haven't given H67 a second thought but I'm now wondering if going P67 with a upper midrange video card is a waste of money and energy consumption. Overclocking sounds like something I would enjoy obsessing on for a few months but it's not a big factor in the decision.

The only GPU intensive scenarios for me are Photoshop (including plug-ins and applying large action sets to 15MB files), Lightroom (importing & developing hundreds of 15MB files at a time), home video editing, transcoding, & rendering on Sony Vegas and Adobe Premiere (.mov, AVHCD, & mt2s files), transcoding/muxing 1080p movies, and just plain watching 1080p movies. Right or wrong, I mention the last one as GPU intensive since my current system (Q6600, GT 9800, 8GB) really struggles with jumping around in HD movies. With contemporary hardware, that's probably not an issue no matter what. I've never used my PC for games but would like to know that I could and "gamer" level performance or high in-game resolutions aren't necessary. I'll want to support 2560 x 1600 for normal computing though.

I saw somewhere that trancoding with Quick Sync was fantastic and better (both speed and quality) than with discrete video cards but I don't know anything about QS or what applications use it etc.

Any advice on this decision would be greatly appreciated, even if its just ideas for the considerations to include. Thanks in advance!

 

[Hogan773]

Hey brother - at least there are two of us in the same boat! (on these boards, it seems that most everyone is concerned about dual-SLI-ing their $400 videocards so they can max out the FPS with full AA on Call of Duty or whatever. Not that there's anything wrong with that

So most of those people wouldn't give H67 a passing thought because they want the full GPU path.

Looking again at the IG review, I'm prob still leaning to getting a P67 I guess. For $50-60 I can get a video card that should generally kick butt on the HD3000, plus I can overclock, plus the P67 boards generally seem more robust in terms of features. I can always transcode, but just through the CPU.

Waiting to see how the info flows and maybe I'll change my mind (again)

 

[caseblue]

Looking again at the IG review, I'm prob still leaning to getting a P67 I guess. For $50-60 I can get a video card that should generally kick butt on the HD3000, plus I can overclock, plus the P67 boards generally seem more robust in terms of features. I can always transcode, but just through the CPU.

Indeed, that's where I'm leaning (although I already spent double that on my video card unnecessarily) and I'm going to try and feel content with the decision. It's mainly those charts showing how much faster the HD300 QS encoding is that has me hung up...even though I have no idea if it would really be applicable to me.

 

[InternetUser]

thedosbox, thanks for your posts, much appreciated.

 

[InternetUser]

Hogan, 4 bins OC is now "extreme performance tuning" according to Intel.

incredible gimmickry skills at intel's marketing dept.

According to the Anandtech review (picture above) you should be able to get 400mhz higher than the stated turbo range by using "limited overclock" (this is above and beyond the normal Turbo)

I cant tell from your BIOS shot where you would set that however - yours seems to match the normal Turbo range.

What happens if you type in 35, for example, to the CPU multiplier box. Will the 4 numbers listed in the turbo states all increase by 2? (vs the 33 multiplier you have in there now?) If so, then that's prob the trick....you can prob increase that first box up to 37 on your machine.

Can you let us know if that is the case?

 

[sxr7171]

I saw somewhere that trancoding with Quick Sync was fantastic and better (both speed and quality) than with discrete video cards but I don't know anything about QS or what applications use it etc.

Speed yes. Quality no. The AT review has it all.

 

[Hogan773]

Speed yes. Quality no. The AT review has it all.

Yeah then pfluck QuickSync.....when I transcode, I'll go for quality and if it takes a few extra minutes, I'll have a beer. I'm not gonna have the tail wag the dog and buy H67 just so I can use the magical QS some day.

Still, the Intel design re: OC, graphics and Mobos is really counterintuitive.