q6600 vs e6600 and best memory option

[vdeluca7]

What is a better option for a heavy multi-tasker, a q6600 overclocked to 3.2 or a e6600 overclocked to 3.6 on an EVGA 680i with 4 GIGS RAM? Also, looked at 4GB 2x2 sets from Mushkin, would I notice a difference in performance with a bette timed set or is the speed of the set more important? I am looking at pc2 6400 sets timed at 5-5-5-12, 5-4-4-12 and 4-3-3-10 and a pc2 8500 set at 5-4-4-12 (pretty expensive for my tastes). Where would I notice the improvement in performance the most and what is the best use of my money?

Thank you for the input.

 

[lopri]

How heavy a multi-tasker? An example would help. If multitasking enough to warrant the need for a quad-core, I wouldn't worry about timings, but rather capacity. 4GB is a good starting point and even 8GB can be a consideration. (if you're using Vista 64-bit) Really, at that point memory frequencies and timings become a really moot point. Not only that, current crop of BIOS (from various manufacturers) aren't able to squeeze performance out of memory to any meaningful degree, with a quad-core CPU. This will improve over time but the weight will still be on the size over speed. I've got myself the following sticks.

http://www.mwave.com/mwave/viewspec.hmx?scriteria=BA23820

It was the least expensive 2GB sticks I could find and they turned out to be quite decent. Can't beat $80 for a 2GB stick that does DDR2-800/4-4-4 @1.90V. It doesn't like high voltages and frequency seems to max out around 900MHz. AENEON is Infineon's OEM channel, I believe. (like Crucial is Micron's retail channel)

 

[vdeluca7]

I run, every day, antivirus and antispyware and firewall, about twenty one things in the system tray, Accounting Software, three or four copies of excel, outlook, word (one or two copies) and three or so browsers all at the same time. Also, may be loading SQL Server 2005 and .NET 2005 development environments at the same time too. Also, defrag and backup run sporadically. I am currently running all this in one gig RAM on an Athlon 1.2 gz cpu. I will be running 64-bit Vista ASAP after I can verify drivers. Initially, I will be running 32-bit Vista.

My motherboard choice is rated for pc 6400 (the 680i). I am debating between that and pc 8500 ram. I have read that the memory is the bottleneck for this chipset, the CPUs are bottlenecked by the memory. I intend to overclock the quad core to 3.2 gz. I am going to run 64-bit eventually, I have ultimate full Vista already. I will end up with 4 gigs of ram pretty soon for 64-bit, and I have heard of problems with timings for more than two sticks of ram with this motherboard. The motherboard is capable of 8 gigs, so I will start with 4GB 2x2 and add more later if needed. I don't want less than pc 6400 ram since I can afford it and my motherboard supports it--pc8500 2x2 sticks are priced high for me now, but I am doing research here, which is free, so just wondered.

Overclockers are using much faster ram, all the way up to pc 1167 with this motherboard, but in two 1 gig sticks. I need 4 gigs 2x2, so my choices are limited to 6400 and 8500 at this time since that is all that is available.

Do you know if there is a noticeable difference in the 6400 vs the 8500? How noticeable is the difference with different timings?

Thanks for your input, anyone.

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: vdeluca7
I run, every day, antivirus and antispyware and firewall, about twenty one things in the system tray, Accounting Software, three or four copies of excel, outlook, word (one or two copies) and three or so browsers all at the same time. Also, may be loading SQL Server 2005 and .NET 2005 development environments at the same time too. Also, defrag and backup run sporadically. I am currently running all this in one gig RAM on an Athlon 1.2 gz cpu. I will be running 64-bit Vista ASAP after I can verify drivers. Initially, I will be running 32-bit Vista.

My motherboard choice is rated for pc 6400 (the 680i). I am debating between that and pc 8500 ram. I have read that the memory is the bottleneck for this chipset, the CPUs are bottlenecked by the memory. I intend to overclock the quad core to 3.2 gz. I am going to run 64-bit eventually, I have ultimate full Vista already. I will end up with 4 gigs of ram pretty soon for 64-bit, and I have heard of problems with timings for more than two sticks of ram with this motherboard. The motherboard is capable of 8 gigs, so I will start with 4GB 2x2 and add more later if needed. I don't want less than pc 6400 ram since I can afford it and my motherboard supports it--pc8500 2x2 sticks are priced high for me now, but I am doing research here, which is free, so just wondered.

Overclockers are using much faster ram, all the way up to pc 1167 with this motherboard, but in two 1 gig sticks. I need 4 gigs 2x2, so my choices are limited to 6400 and 8500 at this time since that is all that is available.

Do you know if there is a noticeable difference in the 6400 vs the 8500? How noticeable is the difference with different timings?

Thanks for your input, anyone.

Most of the things you said you will be running will be bottlenecked by the hard drive rather than the CPU. Doesn't look like anything you are running will bog down a dual core let alone a quad core, so I would just stick with a dual core. Not any gurantees you will get the quad to 3.2 or the dual to 3.6 either. 4gig of ram won't do you any good on a 32bit OS either, you'll be limited to 3.25. Unless you actualy have some hardware that has drivers for 32bit Vista but not 64bit, but I haven't really seen that as an issue. The only thing I don't have drivers for is my sound card, and neither 32 nor 64bit Vista have drivers for it.

I'd probably just stick with the 6400 ram, because you'll have a high enough CPU multiplier that the ram won't really become the bottleneck, you'll hit your CPU's limit at or below the stock speeds of 800mhz DDR-2.

 

[vdeluca7]

Wouldn't there be an advantage to more cores with so many programs runninng at once?

What ram specs would be best and how noticeable would the difference be?

I was considering a q6600 with Mushkin 5-5-5-12 t2 6400 4GB 2X2 since I read that the quad cores run hot and it is important to keep the voltages lower--voltage for the unit I was considering is 1.8.

An alternative would be e6600 with Mushkin 4-3-3-10 6400 4GB 2 X 2 voltage 2.2 - 2.3 for about the same $$$.

How overclockable would these two options be, generally and what are the issues I should know about--ram, cpu, etc. I am pretty new to overclocking. I have read a few articles online and have used ASUS automated overclocking program a number of times before. I do not know whether my memory choices above are good ones for my goals of 3.6 for the e6600 or 3.2 for the q6600. Also, for about a $100 more than the e6600 I can get the e6700. Is there a good reason to do this?

I am not concerned about seeing all 4 gigs under a 32-bit os. As long as I can see 2 gigs I should be fine. The four gigs will help when the 64-bit os is used.

I already ordered a ThermalRight Ultra120 Extreme and fan (artic silver 5 of course).

I will be running this in an Antec 900 Series case.

The motherboard I have settled on is the EVGA A-1 (although I have given considerable thought to the Striker because of the dual raids--the high number of problems people are having have given me pause).

Any more thoughts?

Thank you.

 

[rangda]

Originally posted by: vdeluca7
I run, every day, antivirus and antispyware and firewall, about twenty one things in the system tray, Accounting Software, three or four copies of excel, outlook, word (one or two copies) and three or so browsers all at the same time. Also, may be loading SQL Server 2005 and .NET 2005 development environments at the same time too. Also, defrag and backup run sporadically. I am currently running all this in one gig RAM on an Athlon 1.2 gz cpu. I will be running 64-bit Vista ASAP after I can verify drivers. Initially, I will be running 32-bit Vista.

What stevty2889 is saying is that very little of this stuff is eating up CPU time. av/as/firewall use very little cpu, and if you have active av/as scans they will be IO bound rather than CPU bound. Excel, Outlook, and Word do nothing but sit there and eat swap (and the occasional repaint) if you just leave the windows up and don't do anything. Unless you start a bunch of excel macros cranking to do some math and then tab off to another window.

SQL server could chew up serious IO as well as CPU/RAM depending on what you are doing, but I doubt you will be doing anything so seriously intensive on your local box. VS 2005 doesn't use much CPU at all unless you are using the ASP.NET or SQL reporting services designers, these seem to chug a bit (especially the ASP.NET designer, it's horrible if you flip it to xml mode; it does a first pass compile in the background as you change things to check for syntax errors.

I run a Q6600 because I tend to do things like do a video encode, run visual studio, and play everquest all at the same time.

For your situation you might be better off with a 15k SCSI disk than a quad core. However I would strongly recommend you install vista x64 instead of x86 and get at least 4GB of ram. VS and SQL are memory pigs, you are going to need it. I run vista x64 and there is very little I have that would work in x86 that does not in x64. My (ancient) Strategic Sidewinder is one thing, and most of the overclocking/tuning apps don't work yet either (although SpeedFan, RivaTuner, and nHancer do). Pro audio stuff is largely not working at all in Vista, either x86 or x64. Most of these companies are taking their sweet time trying hard to pretend Vista does not exist. If you have a Creative sound card there may/may not be issues there, I have heard the drivers are shakey (I don't have a Creative card).

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: vdeluca7
I run, every day, antivirus and antispyware and firewall, about twenty one things in the system tray, Accounting Software, three or four copies of excel, outlook, word (one or two copies) and three or so browsers all at the same time. Also, may be loading SQL Server 2005 and .NET 2005 development environments at the same time too. Also, defrag and backup run sporadically. I am currently running all this in one gig RAM on an Athlon 1.2 gz cpu.

:Q

Originally posted by: rangda
What stevty2889 is saying is that very little of this stuff is eating up CPU time. av/as/firewall use very little cpu, and if you have active av/as scans they will be IO bound rather than CPU bound. Excel, Outlook, and Word do nothing but sit there and eat swap (and the occasional repaint) if you just leave the windows up and don't do anything. Unless you start a bunch of excel macros cranking to do some math and then tab off to another window.

SQL server could chew up serious IO as well as CPU/RAM depending on what you are doing, but I doubt you will be doing anything so seriously intensive on your local box. VS 2005 doesn't use much CPU at all unless you are using the ASP.NET or SQL reporting services designers, these seem to chug a bit (especially the ASP.NET designer, it's horrible if you flip it to xml mode; it does a first pass compile in the background as you change things to check for syntax errors.

I run a Q6600 because I tend to do things like do a video encode, run visual studio, and play everquest all at the same time.

For your situation you might be better off with a 15k SCSI disk than a quad core. However I would strongly recommend you install vista x64 instead of x86 and get at least 4GB of ram. VS and SQL are memory pigs, you are going to need it. I run vista x64 and there is very little I have that would work in x86 that does not in x64. My (ancient) Strategic Sidewinder is one thing, and most of the overclocking/tuning apps don't work yet either (although SpeedFan, RivaTuner, and nHancer do). Pro audio stuff is largely not working at all in Vista, either x86 or x64. Most of these companies are taking their sweet time trying hard to pretend Vista does not exist. If you have a Creative sound card there may/may not be issues there, I have heard the drivers are shakey (I don't have a Creative card)

QTF. And maybe a $800 Areca RAID card.

I'm having a hard time understanding that you're debating over memory speeds, let alone quad-core CPUs, all the while you've been 'multi-tasking' with 1.2GHz Athlon.

Originally posted by: vdeluca7
Do you know if there is a noticeable difference in the 6400 vs the 8500? How noticeable is the difference with different timings?

Nope. And timings and frequencies are different things. When you say PC6400, PC8500, etc., those are frequencies (speed). Both timings and frequencies affect latency at which data is fed to the CPU via FSB. But chances are whether you buy PC6400 sticks or pC8500 sticks won't matter at all because memory speed is decided by divisors (which changes with FSB). There is no guarantee that you'll run certain MHz with your memory. Heck, you don't even know how high your CPU will clock before you try it out.

99% of the time, overclocking CPU by 20MHz more will be more beneficial to performance than memory overclocking - no matter how much. Don't get me wrong - fiddling with memory is certainly fun. But when it comes to getting work done (which looks to be your main concern), memory overclocking means nothing, at best. (at worst it can blow all your work away )

Like others, I'd recommend a dual-core CPU for your usage. E4300/E6400/E6600 would all nicely suit your needs and you will see a tremendous performance boost.

 

[f4phantom2500]

imo you should go with the dual core and use the money saved to get a couple of good hard drives in a raid 0 array, maybe a couple of those 320gb 7200.10's? I think they're only like $80 a piece now. that would alleviate the io bottleneck quite a bit.

 

[vdeluca7]

Thank you all for your advice. I did get the e6600 but went with the Mushkin 8500 4GB 2x2 5-4-4-12 2.3v sticks, before your last reply. I ordered a 8800gts 640, an evga 680i. I already have a Raptor 150 hard drive. I will install Vista 64 Ultimate per your advice. Would I benefit from doing a raid 0 with dual raptors? or would it be better to do a Raptor for the system drive and do dual 7200.10s in raid 0 for the data drives? (or get another Raptor and do raid 0 with the raptors?) I will be using SAS 15000 drives in my server when I set it up, but I went with the Raptor for the workstation. Would I notice much difference in performance if I went with 15000 rpm drives over the Raptor?

I have the CPU cooler on the way as well. I ordered the ThermalTake Utra120 Extreme with Artic Silver 5 and a great fan. A dvd-rom and a 52-in-1 card reader. All in my Antec 900 series case. How does this system sound?

I had a water cooling set, the ThermalTake BigWater 735, but have read not too good of reviews on it so I am going to try it on my older system to see if it helps cool it down.


Thanks.

 

[cmdrdredd]

For your memory I suggest http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820161030 if you are on a budget. They're good solid DDR2-800 sticks rated to 1.8v (no problems booting after cmos reset like some sets). $90 for 2GB is pretty good. They're cas 5 though, but for about $110 you can get something with cas4 like http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820144062

I'm not sure how well those Mushkin will work initially since they state 2.3v. Some sets don't like booting on a board if it tried to start at 1.8 or 1.9v

Good luck

 

[jhurst]

Originally posted by: vdeluca7
Thank you all for your advice. I did get the e6600 but went with the Mushkin 8500 4GB 2x2 5-4-4-12 2.3v sticks, before your last reply. I ordered a 8800gtx 640, an evga 680i. I already have a Raptor 150 hard drive. I will install Vista 64 Ultimate per your advice. Would I benefit from doing a raid 0 with dual raptors? or would it be better to do a Raptor for the system drive and do dual 7200.10s in raid 0 for the data drives? (or get another Raptor and do raid 0 with the raptors?) I will be using SAS 15000 drives in my server when I set it up, but I went with the Raptor for the workstation. Would I notice much difference in performance if I went with 15000 rpm drives over the Raptor?

I have the CPU cooler on the way as well. I ordered the ThermalTake Utra120 Extreme with Artic Silver 5 and a great fan. A dvd-rom and a 52-in-1 card reader. All in my Antec 900 series case. How does this system sound?

I had a water cooling set, the ThermalTake BigWater 735, but have read not too good of reviews on it so I am going to try it on my older system to see if it helps cool it down.

Extreme overkill. With that many office applications going at the same time, you need to throw out the U-120 and go back to water-cooling, those apps are b*tches, especially with an antivirus AND firewall running, simultaneously! Don't forget that when you have all that running, and you want to play your favorite game with the highest detail settings, you will need to water-cool your 8800GTX also.

What a joke.

 

[vdeluca7]

I do not game.

I intended for the system to be overpowered, to give me a long time before I need to upgrade.

My sweet spot is to extend the length of time as long as possible with great speed and excellent responsiveness, regardless of what or how many programs I have running at one time.

If I need to do water cooling, I will. But from what I have been reading, the Ultra120 Extreme is an excellent option, and the best air cooled option available. When coupled with my Antec 900 Series case, I doubt water cooling will be necessary.

I did not select the gtx, but the gts, to give a fast option for all the features of Vista and Directx10. I decided that the gtx was overkill for my needs but the gts was a price I was willing to bear and it does not run as hot nor does it restrict the airflow in the case as much, and the 8600, even two with SLI, was not an option I wanted since a gts gives me the option for two in sli to greatly increase speed down the road if necessary. Since I will be running hi-def dvds, probably blu-ray in the future at 1920 x 1200 which will be my everyday resolution for working on all my programs, I decided the 640 meg was a better option than the 320. If I need to do SLI in the future, that option is always open to me.

No system is a joke if it meets the goals of its owner. And your rudeness is not appreciated.

 

[vdeluca7]

I know I may need to start with one stick or get a cheap stick of ram to "jump-start" the system. From what I have been reading, once you set SLI and possible other settings in bios, the system will recognize the higher powered 2.3 volt memory and also both sticks.

Obviously, the higher powered sticks must work for someone or no one would be buying them. The EVGA 680i A-1 is pretty much as cutting edge as it gets right now, so these should work. If not, NewEgg support is great and I will contact them for a better option.

What would be the safest and best way to configure the system to initially recognize the memory? How would I go about over-clocking from there? What understanding should I have to get started? I know the e6600 a has a locked multiplier at 10x. What is the best procedure for gradually over-clocking and testing? I am really new to this.

Any input would be appreciated.

Thanks.

 

[vdeluca7]

Downloaded several over-clocking articles to get started from several sources, including over-clocking the EVGA 680i/Core2Duo, memory and video card.


Did find the memory I purchased reviewed in an article {http://techgage.com/article/mushkin_4gb_xp2-8500/4) used on the EVGA 680i. Stable to 2.5 volts and performance was very good. They hit 600mz, which is impressive for a 4GB set--Best 4GB 2X2 set on the market now. Also, the rated CAS5 memory got stably over-clocked to 1200mz. Pretty good for a 1066mz set of 4GB 2x2, per the article I read. Do a Google on Mushkin 8500 4GB EVGA to find the article I mentioned. Right near the top. Overkill? Perhaps, mostly financially. My goals will permit this once in a while but I could have been less extravagant.

I did note that the EVGA memory slots are rated at 1.8 Volts. Does this mean that over-clocking is a requirement for memory rated at 2.3 volts? The above article stated that 2.2 volts was safe and that 2.3 probably should not be exceeded for a prolonged length of time. The memory being rated at 2.3 Volts, I guess that any over-clocking over that voltage would void the warranty, correct? Any input on these matters would be greatly appreciated, as well as recommendations for over-clock settings and best practices for over-clocking safely.

Thank you.