What do you guys think of my potential upgrade choices?

[bryanW1995]

I have heard of some instances where people got a max stable oc at a lower multiplier, like 7x500 vs 8x425 or whatever. I agree, however, that those are probably the exception rather than the rule. Running your computer at a higher fsb for that couple % max increase in performance is almost definitely not worth the additional wear and tear that you get on the system from running it that much higher fsb imho.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

There are people who overclock more than just their CPU. It does have an impact to some degree to run higher FSB speeds.

Of course there are people who overclock memory to 1200+ and above. But it's important to understand what you are getting for that high performance ram on a C2D/Q system in games - Not noticeable performance difference

If you have a link that shows high performance memory is worth buying for a gaming rig, please post it in this thread.

The extra you get is higher FSB possible through memory not limiting you, thus higher CPU overclock.

 

[SerpentRoyal]

The sweet spot for P35 is around 460MHz FSB. It's also the sweet spot for many DDR2 RAMs.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: SerpentRoyal
The sweet spot for P35 is around 460MHz FSB. It's also the sweet spot for many DDR2 RAMs.

Not everyone has a chip with an 8x+ multi. Those who have an E6300 or something similar will need FSB above 400.

 

[bryanW1995]

even with an 8x multi you want well over 400 fsb in a 1333 chip. Don't get me wrong, 8x400 isn't bad, but it's a whole lot better on an e6400 than it is on an e6750 I'm at 8x451 at 1.52 vcore now that I've finally gotten my updated bios working. I know that's a little bit high but I'm only going to keep this chip for a year or so and temps are fine.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
even with an 8x multi you want well over 400 fsb in a 1333 chip. Don't get me wrong, 8x400 isn't bad, but it's a whole lot better on an e6400 than it is on an e6750 I'm at 8x451 at 1.52 vcore now that I've finally gotten my updated bios working. I know that's a little bit high but I'm only going to keep this chip for a year or so and temps are fine.

I don't see where 400x9 or 450x8 is a big difference except your memory in the latter config is going to be at least DDR2-900.

Maybe you can explain somehow why 400x8 with an E6400 is different than 400x8 with an E6750.

 

[bryanW1995]

it's not faster at all other than the slight performance increase you get when going from 2mb to 4mb L2. I meant that getting 8x400 on a 2.13 ghz 266fsb chip is a much greater improvement than getting 8x400 on a 2.66 ghz 333fsb chip, that's all. I'm willing to pump more vcore through my cpu to get 8x451 + because I expect to run at 3.6. If I had an e6400 at 3.2 or especially 3.4 + I'd be ecstatic to simply boot into windows.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

The extra you get is higher FSB possible through memory not limiting you, thus higher CPU overclock.

Yes I already mentioned the only time it makes sense to spend more on memory is if you are limited by it. But at the same time you can spend more on a cpu to begin with and get one with a higher multiplier. For instance getting $70 DDR2 800 and Allendale 4500 vs. 4400.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

The extra you get is higher FSB possible through memory not limiting you, thus higher CPU overclock.

Yes I already mentioned the only time it makes sense to spend more on memory is if you are limited by it. But at the same time you can spend more on a cpu to begin with and get one with a higher multiplier. For instance getting $70 DDR2 800 and Allendale 4500 vs. 4400.

Not if you plan to overclock memory anyway which leads in a circle. Some people buy memory so they can have fast memory speeds at low timings. DDR2-1066 4-4-4-12 for example. At the same time they don't have to spend $200+ on a CPU and can therefor get the next step up in a video card.

It depends on your goals and your budget.

 

[jediphx]

Does the GIGABYTE GA-P35-S3L LGA 775 Intel P35 ATX I chose leave me upgrade options in the future?

 

[jediphx]

guys with that setup should I go with Xp 32 or 64 or Vista 32 or 64? I have kinda stayed away from Vista so far because of the less than stellar gaming performance

 

[myocardia]

There are many other reasons not to buy Vista, besides lackluster performance. BTW, the "Palladium" they talk about in that link is Vista; Palladium was it's codename.

 

[alkemyst]

Good advice on the PSU above, Russian's system looks like a good way to go. There will always be faster memory for much more money like everything else...OCZ has dropped in price a lot lately, I am thinking of picking up their DDR 2GB kit. My advice to anyone esp overclocking/running high(er) end video...stretch the PSU budget has far as you can. I have swapped many PSU's in the past that resulted in machines going from flakey to ones I never hear about. Most of the time these did run fine stock, but once the person added another HD or upgraded the video card, etc they started having problems even though their PSU's were rated with enough watts.

Many PSU calcs error on the high side to factor in average PSU quality. Top tier PSU's can beat out overseas junk rated at 2x the watts.

I'd avoid Vista too. I work for a large Fortune 400 and Vista will not connect through citrix on our remote portals. Also I have had to get 3 associates now to go back to XP Pro/Home (I hate home but to some the cost difference was a factor) due to programs not working.

What's odd though is some of the problems (Slingbox esp) run on some Vista's ok, but others they didn't. These were both the same 'Premium' version...however the hardware was slightly different...both were Dell laptops though.