|
Just Bought New Computer...Is This Good? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Abercrombie |
| quote: | Originally posted by jsibilin
compared to what some ppl buy nowadays,,,
for example http://www.voodoopc.com/
those pc's are crazy!! |
+1
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
thinking about getting an HP with the q6700 and 6GB of ram from futureshop for around 1100$ without a monitor... anyone has one of these?
used to build my own rigs, but i can't bother to do that anymore... to lazy and I want a nice clean case (inside and out). |
Same here. I built my own since the '92, and tired of it.... no sense nickel and diming anything anymore. Time is worth more to me than money. I'm back with name brands where I don't have to worry about warranty, support and quality. |
|
|
| love_child |
| quote: | Originally posted by VERTiG0
$1700 for that? Holy you got hosed mate
Also Diginut you're kinda dumb for saying that overclocking is "not worth it."
It is VERY much worth it. Why wouldn't you get the extra speed if you can?
I bought my current CPU, a Pentium Dual Core E2160 (Conroe core but with 1MB L2 cache and an 800MHz FSB) for $70. It runs 1.8GHz stock. It's currently doing 3.0GHz 100% stable in the most strenuous stress testing for days on end. I barely had to bump the voltage, and it essentially runs on par with a Core 2 Duo E6750, which at the time I bought this was over 3 times the price.
So yeah. Overclocking is amazing if you know what you're doing. Only a tard would let his overclocked rig stay unstable. Just go down in increments until it is fully stable, it isn't difficult. |
Thanks for the info but I think it is kind of harsh to call him dumb...he sounds like an intelligent dude from what Ive seen in his other posts but everyone has there own personal opinion. Maybe I did pay more than what I should have but like I said I am not a genius with this computer stuff and maybe I should have looked around a bit more but it...Im moving on to this rig from a ing Athlon 1800 LOL...its ancient and I can barely run more than 1 application at once :( |
|
|
| Invasionmix |
| quote: | Originally posted by love_child
Your right...now that I remember he said to go with the Zalman CNPS9500 because he will overclock it so it will keep it running cooler. Like I said Im no computer wiz and he used Microsoft Excels spreadsheet to create a list for my computer and show me which parts he would use so I guess he just forgot to take off the original Thermaltake and replace it. |
Would this be from Canada Computers?
Meh the Zalman 9500 is overrated and overpriced imo. Thermalright Ultra 120 :D or the Cooler Master Hyper 212 is a lot better for almost half the price. |
|
|
| E2EK1EL |
Gonna buy a new comp next yr, wouldn't spent $1700 ... I do alittle more then surfing and etc on my comps, most i'll pay for a setup is $1400 w/ a LCD.
Maybe I'll wait until the OCTACORE comes out lol. |
|
|
| E2EK1EL |
In the past ... Overclocking was sketchy, but now it's very stable. Every CPU and Motherboard company love to big up their product w/ OverClocking this and that. It's all made for overclocking now.
The Core 2 Duo can overclock 45% more power w/ just the OEM fan.
(I don't know about computers and I even know this. It's 2008 !!! Everyone should be somewhat above the so called basics) |
|
|
| E2EK1EL |
| quote: | Originally posted by VERTiG0
$1700 for that? Holy you got hosed mate |
YO NIGGA, take it this way ... the price he paid is cheaper then an high end iMAC. The specs he has CRUSHED the iMac to ! Ya gotta still big him up for not going towards the iTrend LOL
RESPECTS to the LoveChild. |
|
|
| El K Dee |
i paid $67 for a 500 GB HD last month...seagate to be precise...and anyone that wants to hate on seagate, seagates have been good to me for 2 decades so i like them and was fine with the purchase...
so back to the OP's thing...so if u DID pay anything over 2 digits (including taxes), u got thoroughly ripped off... |
|
|
| Jer |
| Jesus am I ever behind in the ing times |
|
|
| Playa24_7 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Invasionmix
lol it's overkill for what you're doing. But that's a really nice comp, how much did you spend about 1500? |
I built my dad a PC with a quad core, and he just uses it for email and to play chess lol!
Even my PC is overkill for what I use it for. I don't even play games, but I have an 8800GT OC haha. |
|
|
| love_child |
| quote: | Originally posted by Playa24_7
I built my dad a PC with a quad core, and he just uses it for email and to play chess lol!
Even my PC is overkill for what I use it for. I don't even play games, but I have an 8800GT OC haha. |
So will I be happy with it then? Is it blazing fast? I will probably play Call of Duty 4 and . My Asus 4850 Ati Radeon holds up to the 8800 GTX on benchmark testing which im happy about. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by VERTiG0
Also Diginut you're kinda dumb for saying that overclocking is "not worth it."
It is VERY much worth it. Why wouldn't you get the extra speed if you can? |
Right, you really jumped the shark here. I thought you were smarter than this.
CPUs are not "made" to be overclocked. Nothing has changed between 5 years ago and today except for improvements in cooling and more precise control over the clock parameters.
Mostly, the lower-speed CPUs are the ones that failed factory tests at higher clock speeds. They get rebranded and sold at a lower price. Just because they passed your (no doubt highly exhaustive) "stress test" doesn't mean they're actually stable, and definitely doesn't mean that you aren't doing gradual damage to a chip which is designed to operate within a very narrow tolerance. It's possible that the particular unit you bought was never tested at the higher speeds, or failed some obscure test that will never affect you, but you have no way of ever knowing this.
And as I explained, to start with, the "extra speed" is almost totally imperceptible. Aside from a few very specific applications which I'm fairly certain don't relate to you, CPU is never the bottleneck anyway. It takes thousands of times longer for a single memory access, and thousands of times longer than that for a disk seek. It doesn't matter whether it takes 10 ns or 12 ns to execute a few thousand instructions when you shove a 10 ms (1 million times longer) wait time in there.
There are two CPU parameters which have been shown to have a noticeable effect on system performance. The first is number of cores, and today at least, once you already have 2, you've hit the point of diminishing returns (this may change in the future as more applications are designed to make use of the extra cores). The second is on-chip cache, which can actually make the biggest difference by eliminating some of those memory and disk access times, and a stock Q9450 with 12 MB L2 cache running at 2.66 GHz will easily outperform a Q9300 with a 6 MB cache that's been overclocked to 3 GHz. Always.
Clock speed means all today. Even the manufacturers have realized that, which is why over the past year or two there's been hardly any change in CPU clock speeds, and instead they're concentrating on stuffing in more cores and bigger cache sizes. |
|
|
| Nick Cenik |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Absolutely not worth it. You'll never notice the difference and you might end up making the system unstable or shortening the life of the CPU.
|
Indeed: O/Cing would be very unwise. |
|
|
|
|
