The QX6700 is sometimes on ebay for around 3 smackers. While that
seems a pretty good discount and with all of the usual caveats about
not knowing what the chip's been through or if it's even going to show
up, a part of me, the cheap bastard, says that it's a waste of money
in that the Q6600 G0 I alrady have that I'm only OCing 10% right now
at auto everything could with a couple or 6 hours of direct effort and
a few days of prime95ing be a decent 3.2-3.4ghz 24/7 processor on the
striker extreme without frying either the cpu or stressing the
motherboard out too much and I've walked past these.
Does this sound right, that is, to just have fun with this and save
the shekels for Nehalem?
Howard Goldstein schrieb:
> The QX6700 is sometimes on ebay for around 3 smackers. While that
> seems a pretty good discount and with all of the usual caveats about
> not knowing what the chip's been through or if it's even going to show
> up, a part of me, the cheap bastard, says that it's a waste of money
> in that the Q6600 G0 I alrady have that I'm only OCing 10% right now
> at auto everything could with a couple or 6 hours of direct effort and
> a few days of prime95ing be a decent 3.2-3.4ghz 24/7 processor on the
> striker extreme without frying either the cpu or stressing the
> motherboard out too much and I've walked past these.
IMHO, buying anything of the Extrem-series from Intel is pure stupidity
with the current cheap, hardcore-overclockable hardware around. The
Q6600 should do *at least* 3.0GHz without any vcore increase or temp
problems, that's my experience. Unfortunately, with my mobo (P5N32-E
SLI) it won't go one MHz above that number. I haven't tested that with
the new BIOS that came out recently, though.
And in addition to this, in games, the more MHz won't do nothing if you
have a decent GPU. For example, there's virtually NO SINGLE frame
difference in Crysis for me between stock 2.4GHz and overclocked 3.0GHz
with my (overclocked to 680MHz) GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB.
Bigger is not always better! You should be well aware whether "more"
actually *gives* you more. It's the same with RAM -- I've seen two
friends buying 4GB of RAM, while I sold 1GB from my 3GB setup because
it's worth *nothing* in practice! 2GB is currently the maximum you
should have, if you want to make sense. Everything above that will
probably never be in use.
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:10:14 +0100, Daniel Albuschat <daniel@happy.viming.de> wrote:
: Howard Goldstein schrieb:
: > The QX6700 is sometimes on ebay for around 3 smackers. While that
: > seems a pretty good discount and with all of the usual caveats about
: > not knowing what the chip's been through or if it's even going to show
: > up, a part of me, the cheap bastard, says that it's a waste of money
: > in that the Q6600 G0 I alrady have that I'm only OCing 10% right now
: > at auto everything could with a couple or 6 hours of direct effort and
: > a few days of prime95ing be a decent 3.2-3.4ghz 24/7 processor on the
: > striker extreme without frying either the cpu or stressing the
: > motherboard out too much and I've walked past these.
:
: IMHO, buying anything of the Extrem-series from Intel is pure stupidity
: with the current cheap, hardcore-overclockable hardware around. The
: Q6600 should do *at least* 3.0GHz without any vcore increase or temp
: problems, that's my experience. Unfortunately, with my mobo (P5N32-E
: SLI) it won't go one MHz above that number. I haven't tested that with
: the new BIOS that came out recently, though.
:
: And in addition to this, in games, the more MHz won't do nothing if you
: have a decent GPU. For example, there's virtually NO SINGLE frame
: difference in Crysis for me between stock 2.4GHz and overclocked 3.0GHz
: with my (overclocked to 680MHz) GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB.
:
: Bigger is not always better! You should be well aware whether "more"
: actually *gives* you more. It's the same with RAM -- I've seen two
: friends buying 4GB of RAM, while I sold 1GB from my 3GB setup because
: it's worth *nothing* in practice! 2GB is currently the maximum you
: should have, if you want to make sense. Everything above that will
: probably never be in use.
It was nearsighted of me not to at least mention what the box that
could have gotten the QX does. It's not a gaming machine, it's one of
the freebsd machines that spend about 90% of its life in production
desktop service running X and typical userland desktop apps, and the
other 10% as a network file server and <1% serving up web pages to teh
intertubes with a really lightweight but very cool web server
(Bernstein's publicfile package)
The "_ule" scheduler does a fairly good job keeping processes on
particular cores so I don't have a lot of thrashing across the caches
except when it gets extraordinarily loaded.
I would like to have more snappiness with firefox and thunderbird but
for 300 smackers I think I can tolerate a lot of delay.
On this machine I waste a tremendous amount of ram. Even after it
runs for a week or more it hasn't touched more than a gig and a half.
I suppose I should enlarge the disk cache and use the other 512mb
Howard Goldstein schrieb:
> It was nearsighted of me not to at least mention what the box that
> could have gotten the QX does. It's not a gaming machine, it's one of
> the freebsd machines that spend about 90% of its life in production
> desktop service running X and typical userland desktop apps, and the
> other 10% as a network file server and <1% serving up web pages to teh
> intertubes with a really lightweight but very cool web server
> (Bernstein's publicfile package)
In that case, I recommend yourself getting a SPARC-server with 64 cpus,
please. :-P
Honestly, buying a QX for *that* box is a waste of money never seen before.
> I would like to have more snappiness with firefox and thunderbird but
> for 300 smackers I think I can tolerate a lot of delay.
huh?
[snip]
> How do you like the 8800 GTS?
Well, I bought the GTS a few weeks before the GT was announced. The GT
is definitely superior, having a higher clock-rate and a smaller (45nm)
gpu-architecture should make it scream *quite* a bit more than my
current GTS. I could imagine the GT overclock to 800MHz or so, while my
GTS is at it's limit at 700 (watercooled). With anything more I get crashes.
I think everybody about buying a graphics card now should wait at least
until the new 45nm-based GTS are released. And I think the Radeon 3850HD
has an even better price/performance rating. I've heard the
Radeon-drivers are still crap, my last ATI/AMD was a Radeon 8500, which
ran under Linux exclusively, though. And yes, the drivers were crap. :-)
On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 08:40:55 +0100, Daniel Albuschat <daniel@happy.viming.de> wrote:
: Howard Goldstein schrieb:
: > It was nearsighted of me not to at least mention what the box that
: > could have gotten the QX does. It's not a gaming machine, it's one of
: > the freebsd machines that spend about 90% of its life in production
: > desktop service running X and typical userland desktop apps, and the
: > other 10% as a network file server and <1% serving up web pages to teh
: > intertubes with a really lightweight but very cool web server
: > (Bernstein's publicfile package)
:
: In that case, I recommend yourself getting a SPARC-server with 64 cpus,
: please. :-P
I do not reject gifts
:
: Honestly, buying a QX for *that* box is a waste of money never
: seen before.
You've obviously never met my wife.
:
: > I would like to have more snappiness with firefox and thunderbird but
: > for 300 smackers I think I can tolerate a lot of delay.
:
: huh?
Reponsiveness
:
: [snip]
:
: > How do you like the 8800 GTS?
:
: Well, I bought the GTS a few weeks before the GT was announced. The GT
: is definitely superior, having a higher clock-rate and a smaller (45nm)
: gpu-architecture should make it scream *quite* a bit more than my
: current GTS. I could imagine the GT overclock to 800MHz or so, while my
: GTS is at it's limit at 700 (watercooled). With anything more I get crashes.
: I think everybody about buying a graphics card now should wait at least
: until the new 45nm-based GTS are released. And I think the Radeon 3850HD
: has an even better price/performance rating. I've heard the
: Radeon-drivers are still crap, my last ATI/AMD was a Radeon 8500, which
: ran under Linux exclusively, though. And yes, the drivers were crap. :-)
:
: Daniel
Howard Goldstein schrieb:
> On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 08:40:55 +0100, Daniel Albuschat <daniel@happy.viming.de> wrote:
> : Honestly, buying a QX for *that* box is a waste of money never
> : seen before.
>
> You've obviously never met my wife.
Hehehe :-)
> : > I would like to have more snappiness with firefox and thunderbird but
> : > for 300 smackers I think I can tolerate a lot of delay.
> :
> : huh?
>
> Reponsiveness
And with 'delay' you mean delayed shipping of the hardware? I had some
problem with 'snappiness' and 'delay' in the same sentence, thought
they'd both relate to Firefox and Thunderbird.
I pretty much love my Q6600 Quad-Core and two of my friends already have
one, too and I ordered a complete new system with a Q6600 for my dad
yesterday. I think those CPUs totally rock. If you got the right
software that can do stuff in parallel (like encoding or something),
it's a great gain and leaves all other CPUs in the dust.
I'll have a shot at overclocking today or at thursday again, since I
haven't tried it with the latest BIOS-update. I couldn't get it above
3.0GHz before.
On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 09:19:02 +0100, Daniel Albuschat <daniel@happy.viming.de> wrote:
: Howard Goldstein schrieb:
: > On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 08:40:55 +0100, Daniel Albuschat <daniel@happy.viming.de> wrote:
: > : Honestly, buying a QX for *that* box is a waste of money never
: > : seen before.
: >
: > You've obviously never met my wife.
:
: Hehehe :-)
:
: > : > I would like to have more snappiness with firefox and thunderbird but
: > : > for 300 smackers I think I can tolerate a lot of delay.
: > :
: > : huh?
: >
: > Reponsiveness
:
: And with 'delay' you mean delayed shipping of the hardware? I had some
: problem with 'snappiness' and 'delay' in the same sentence, thought
: they'd both relate to Firefox and Thunderbird.
Yes, and I'm becoming rather impatient. That's OK though you can
still do an international shipment for Saturday delivery. TIA
When I refresh all with my standard 10 tabs open it takes about 6
seconds to refresh all of the pages with the Q6600 at 2.7ghz, and it's
not waiting on the network it's chugging away eating a processor.
Firefox's lightweight threads could be a little heavier so they
actually tap the other cores but they're not so they don't
OK that's still 30 seconds quicker than on the P4 at 3ghz, but
it's still 10 seconds I could be doing other stuff.
: I pretty much love my Q6600 Quad-Core and two of my friends already have
: one, too and I ordered a complete new system with a Q6600 for my dad
: yesterday. I think those CPUs totally rock. If you got the right
: software that can do stuff in parallel (like encoding or something),
: it's a great gain and leaves all other CPUs in the dust.
: I'll have a shot at overclocking today or at thursday again, since I
: haven't tried it with the latest BIOS-update. I couldn't get it above
: 3.0GHz before.
Agreed - it's a sweet processor. What motherboard are you running
your's on?
I was running mine on the striker extreme at 3.17ghz and it survived
prime95 for a day even with the sauna-like case it's in and the crappy
Arctic Freezer 7 cooler but I moved it back to the 2.7 it's at now
when I started having inexplicable lockups. The lockups turned out to
be bitrot in nvidia's last couple of X drivers, but I never got around
to turning it back up now that it's fitted out with a lovely Noctua
cooler and drivers with less rot.
Howard Goldstein schrieb:
> On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 09:19:02 +0100, Daniel Albuschat <daniel@happy.viming.de> wrote:
> : I pretty much love my Q6600 Quad-Core and two of my friends already have
> : one, too and I ordered a complete new system with a Q6600 for my dad
> : yesterday. I think those CPUs totally rock. If you got the right
> : software that can do stuff in parallel (like encoding or something),
> : it's a great gain and leaves all other CPUs in the dust.
> : I'll have a shot at overclocking today or at thursday again, since I
> : haven't tried it with the latest BIOS-update. I couldn't get it above
> : 3.0GHz before.
>
> Agreed - it's a sweet processor. What motherboard are you running
> your's on?
P5N32-E SLI, that's a nForce 680i chipset. Besides, my dad wanted me to
build a Q6600 setup for him, too, so I got the parts (except for the
case) lying around at home waiting to be put together. I've used a P35
motherboard for that.
And I tried overclocking with the new BIOS-update and it turned out to
be even a bit less overclockable than before. :-)
I currently have a 460W PSU and will temporarily install the 500W PSU I
got for my dad's PC and see whether this changes things. I think that,
in theory, the 460W should be more than enough, but you never know.
Well, at least I don't, I'm not into that kinda electricity stuff.
> I was running mine on the striker extreme at 3.17ghz and it survived
> prime95 for a day even with the sauna-like case it's in and the crappy
> Arctic Freezer 7 cooler but I moved it back to the 2.7 it's at now
> when I started having inexplicable lockups. The lockups turned out to
> be bitrot in nvidia's last couple of X drivers, but I never got around
> to turning it back up now that it's fitted out with a lovely Noctua
> cooler and drivers with less rot.
I love Noctua, too, and I think I'll be ordering two or three Noctua
case-fans for my otherwise watercooled system soon. They're expensive as
hell, though. :-(
reality check 
Linear Mode
