Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core?
"Shadow36" <no@no.com> wrote:
> "JAT23" <JeffTaylor1985@gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in
>> IMO, overclocking isn't worth the few extra
>> bits of speed. You risk the life of your processor, and things
>> can easily overheat if everything is not set up just right.
>>
>> Overclocking made more sense back in the days of 500mhz
>> PC's...but not so much these days. Of the two processors you
>> mentioned here, go with the less expensive one and spend that
>> extra $$ on more RAM.
>>
> Overclocking is only dangerous if you push the vcore too high
> (running it too hot). It's not dangerous at all if you take the
> time and research what you are doing.
It's really only dangerous in your head if you imagine what you are
doing is very important. It probably isn't. For the same reason,
any speed improvement makes little difference. Faster CPUs usually
come with other features that make them faster. If I couldn't afford
enough CPU power and I wanted a little bit more speed to play the
latest games a little less choppy, I might overclock. Even if you
don't believe overclocking damages a processor, be prepared to lie
if/when you sell it.
Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core?
"John Doe" <jdoe@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in message
news:aJ7Uj.2205$nW2.318@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
> "Shadow36" <no@no.com> wrote:
>
>> "JAT23" <JeffTaylor1985@gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in
>
>>> IMO, overclocking isn't worth the few extra
>>> bits of speed. You risk the life of your processor, and things
>>> can easily overheat if everything is not set up just right.
>>>
>>> Overclocking made more sense back in the days of 500mhz
>>> PC's...but not so much these days. Of the two processors you
>>> mentioned here, go with the less expensive one and spend that
>>> extra $$ on more RAM.
>>>
>> Overclocking is only dangerous if you push the vcore too high
>> (running it too hot). It's not dangerous at all if you take the
>> time and research what you are doing.
>
> It's really only dangerous in your head if you imagine what you are
> doing is very important. It probably isn't.
It's unfortunate this newsgroup has to deal with the ramblings that go on in
YOUR head.
>For the same reason,
> any speed improvement makes little difference.
Are you are still using Pentium 60? Or maybe even a 486 since faster speeds
make no difference?
>Faster CPUs usually
> come with other features that make them faster. If I couldn't afford
> enough CPU power and I wanted a little bit more speed to play the
> latest games a little less choppy, I might overclock. Even if you
> don't believe overclocking damages a processor, be prepared to lie
> if/when you sell it.
I wouldn't lie. I wouldn't need to. I don't push the vcore higher than than
the max according to Intel. My temp isn't even close to being dangerous. My
chip isn't being degraded anymore than a stock chip runnign at 3.0 Ghz.
It's funny how you berate overclockers on this forum as if we are stupid or
aren't getting any real benefit from doing it. Can you honestly tell me that
overclocking from 2.13 ghz to 3.0 Ghz offers no improvement? And if not,
does going from 2.13 to a stock 3.0 chip make no difference.
Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core?
"Shadow36" <no no.com> wrote:
> "John Doe" <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote in message
>> "Shadow36" <no no.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "JAT23" <JeffTaylor1985 gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in
>>
>>>> IMO, overclocking isn't worth the few extra bits of speed. You
>>>> risk the life of your processor, and things can easily overheat
>>>> if everything is not set up just right.
>>>>
>>>> Overclocking made more sense back in the days of 500mhz
>>>> PC's...but not so much these days. Of the two processors you
>>>> mentioned here, go with the less expensive one and spend that
>>>> extra $$ on more RAM.
>>>>
>>> Overclocking is only dangerous if you push the vcore too high
>>> (running it too hot). It's not dangerous at all if you take the
>>> time and research what you are doing.
>>
>> It's really only dangerous in your head if you imagine what you
>> are doing is very important. It probably isn't.
>
> It's unfortunate this newsgroup has to deal with the ramblings
> that go on in YOUR head.
We have to deal with lots of things, including silly overclockers
who think they are on the cutting edge of technology because they
know how to go into the BIOS and flip a switch or two.
>> For the same reason, any speed improvement makes little
>> difference.
>
> Are you are still using Pentium 60?
As of today, I'm using an E6850.
> Or maybe even a 486 since faster speeds make no difference?
I guess you don't read very well/much. As follows, I said faster
CPUs usually include other things besides a faster clock.
Increasing the clock speed doesn't do much compared to buying a
current CPU.
>> Faster CPUs usually come with other features that make them
>> faster. If I couldn't afford enough CPU power and I wanted a
>> little bit more speed to play the latest games a little less
>> choppy, I might overclock. Even if you don't believe
>> overclocking damages a processor, be prepared to lie if/when you
>> sell it.
>
> I wouldn't lie. I wouldn't need to.
Bull**** liar.
> My chip isn't being degraded anymore than a stock chip runnign at
> 3.0 Ghz.
Says who?
> It's funny how you berate overclockers on this forum as if we are
> stupid
Every time I hear someone refer to a USENET group as a forum, I get
the feeling they aren't from here, like they started out on website
forums. There are better groups to discuss what you think are the
fine points of overclocking. As I said (in a nutshell), if I
couldn't afford to buy a CPU that runs what I need to run, I would
consider overclocking if I wasn't concerned about having to lie when
I resell the thing.
Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core?
Shadow36 wrote:
> "John Doe" <jdoe@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in message
>> For the same reason,
>> any speed improvement makes little difference.
>
> Are you are still using Pentium 60? Or maybe even a 486 since faster speeds
> make no difference?
Hey Shadow, don't worry about him as he clearly hasn't a clue. He has
completely avoided answering the question below that I put directly to
him elsewhere in this thread. I think he's lost for words due to not
having a convincing answer!
"John Doe(py) wrote:
> The E6850 starts out faster at stock speed but the Q6600 passes it when
> overclocked by 50%. Both could be overclocked to a point using their
stock
> coolers. At some point you will have to use an aftermarket cooler. If
you're
> interested, you can figure out whether or not the aftermarket cooler
point is
> reached before or after the Q6600 becomes faster. Or you can continue
> doing the fan-boy-rant. Whatever.
You clearly don't have a clue.... do the math (please, so you stop
looking like a fool) then get back to me with an answer to how a Q6600
that is 33% overclocked can possibly be slower than an E6850. Both
running 3GHz, both have 9x multiplier, Q6600 has twice as many cores.
_How_ can that possibly be slower?"
Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core?
"class_a" <class_a@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lcGdnWfOY_Iepr_VnZ2dnUVZ_tTinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Shadow36 wrote:
>> "John Doe" <jdoe@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in message
>
>>> For the same reason,
>>> any speed improvement makes little difference.
>>
>> Are you are still using Pentium 60? Or maybe even a 486 since faster
>> speeds make no difference?
>
> Hey Shadow, don't worry about him as he clearly hasn't a clue. He has
> completely avoided answering the question below that I put directly to him
> elsewhere in this thread. I think he's lost for words due to not having a
> convincing answer!
You are right, I'm not going to worry about him. I think he couldn't figure
out how to overclock, so he bashes anyone here that talks about it.
> "John Doe(py) wrote:
>
> > The E6850 starts out faster at stock speed but the Q6600 passes it when
> > overclocked by 50%. Both could be overclocked to a point using their
> stock
> > coolers. At some point you will have to use an aftermarket cooler. If
> you're
> > interested, you can figure out whether or not the aftermarket cooler
> point is
> > reached before or after the Q6600 becomes faster. Or you can continue
> > doing the fan-boy-rant. Whatever.
>
> You clearly don't have a clue.... do the math (please, so you stop looking
> like a fool) then get back to me with an answer to how a Q6600 that is 33%
> overclocked can possibly be slower than an E6850. Both running 3GHz, both
> have 9x multiplier, Q6600 has twice as many cores. _How_ can that possibly
> be slower?"
>
> I'm still waiting for his answer!
Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core?
class_a <class_a comcast.net> wrote:
> He has completely avoided answering the question below that I put
> directly to him elsewhere in this thread. I think he's lost for
> words due to not having a convincing answer!
You have avoided several of my points and direct questions.
I don't need to overclock anything, my CPU is fast enough
for my applications.
You are just a troll.
You need to get a life.
>
>
> "John Doe(py) wrote:
>
> > The E6850 starts out faster at stock speed but the Q6600 passes it when
> > overclocked by 50%. Both could be overclocked to a point using their
> stock
> > coolers. At some point you will have to use an aftermarket cooler. If
> you're
> > interested, you can figure out whether or not the aftermarket cooler
> point is
> > reached before or after the Q6600 becomes faster. Or you can continue
> > doing the fan-boy-rant. Whatever.
>
> You clearly don't have a clue.... do the math (please, so you stop
> looking like a fool) then get back to me with an answer to how a Q6600
> that is 33% overclocked can possibly be slower than an E6850. Both
> running 3GHz, both have 9x multiplier, Q6600 has twice as many cores.
> _How_ can that possibly be slower?"
>
> I'm still waiting for his answer!
>
> Path: newsdbm02.news.prodigy.net!newsdst02.news.prodigy. net!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.net!prodigy .net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.c om!local02.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com! news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 18:30:11 -0500
> Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 19:30:41 -0400
> From: class_a <class_a comcast.net>
> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080226)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Subject: Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core?
> References: <9apSj.12796$GE1.3718 nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com> <TKCdnX4Uvv6JVr3VnZ2dnUVZ_h-vnZ2d giganews.com> <_a5Uj.3980$kQ3.1926 newsfe11.phx> <aJ7Uj.2205$nW2.318 nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com> <eo8Uj.183065$nr1.115751 newsfe13.phx>
> In-Reply-To: <eo8Uj.183065$nr1.115751 newsfe13.phx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Message-ID: <lcGdnWfOY_Iepr_VnZ2dnUVZ_tTinZ2d comcast.com>
> Lines: 34
> X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 76.106.5.189
> X-Trace: sv3-KvDZuX0CEaCrGUEbRVl9sfG1Vkvo8DSL7nfNvIEW+QKX2Wbpou srZ412mSWGaBg0A1a0vZD/6stCtmC!0vBR8AJkjFza/Q2KJEY2lo0KCGobju5jCesiTeylFjLY3nnZDNt53eTkt/W/8Vh8ZQgKeziak0ZV!g/XwzfQugDu1vJSp95sjm6EhzbTI
> X-Complaints-To: abuse comcast.net
> X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca comcast.net
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
> X-Postfilter: 1.3.39
> Bytes: 2751
> Xref: prodigy.net alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:506148
> X-Received-Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 19:30:12 EDT (newsdbm02.news.prodigy.net)
>
Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core?
John Doe wrote:
> class_a <class_a comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> He has completely avoided answering the question below that I put
>> directly to him elsewhere in this thread. I think he's lost for
>> words due to not having a convincing answer!
>
> You have avoided several of my points and direct questions.
Which are? I have directly challenged your (flawed) 'points' and I'm
still waiting for an answer.
> I don't need to overclock anything, my CPU is fast enough
> for my applications.
Well, whoopy-doo for you. If I can make my system 33% faster and more
responsive for zero outlay apart from a few minutes of my time, then I'm
going to do it. Clearly you don't want to get the maximum benefit for
your money, but that is your decision.
> You are just a troll.
Nope, I'm just challenging your flawed statements. You don't seem to
like being challenged to verify your statements so you call me a troll.
Maybe you are the troll because you won't substantiate your assertions?
> You need to get a life.
You need to get a brain.... Do the math and then tell me how can a Q6600
that is 33% overclocked possibly be slower than an E6850. Both running
3GHz, both on Conroe cores, both have 9x multiplier, Q6600 has twice as
many cores. _How_ can that possibly be slower? Your silence on this
question says more than your blustering and bull****ting ever will!
Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core? 
Linear Mode
