Hi guys, I am hopefully buying a new computer in the next 2/3 days (fingers crossed). As a general rule I promised my self I would get an Intel Core 2 Duo processor, most likely the E6600 (@ 2.4Ghz) and nothing else, however, I saw an Intel Quad Core Q6600 (also @ 2.4Ghz). The first question I ask is: 1) Do these processors clock out @ a total of 2.4Ghz, or is each processing unit/cell in them half (or in a quad cores case a quarter) of the total speed, there fore totaling 4.8Ghz (E6600) or 9.6Ghz (Q6600)??? My second question is as follows: 2) Which is the better processor and which do you advise me to go for and why??? If it helps, the other specs of the new computer are expected to be as follows: Ram: 4Gb 667MHz Dual Channel DDR2 Graphics Card: Nvidia 8800GTX @ 768Mb Sound Card: Creative Xtreme Fidelity (X-FI) (possible addition of) Phsyx Card: Ageia Physx Card HDD: 500GB Serial ATA RAID 0 Stripe [2x250GB 7200rpm drives with 8Mb DataBurst™ cache] Thank you very much for any help guys - I really do appreciate it! Thank you
Each core runs at the stated clock speed. Multi-core/multiprocessor configurations don't add each core up to get a sum of the clock speed. It's like having more guys for heavy lifting. You have 4 5 foot guys moving a couch, but you wouldn't say you have one 20 foot guy moving that couch, would you? For gaming, right now, you're really not going to gain much, if anything going with a quad core. However, graphics design, photo editing/creation, video work, or doing several of these things at once...if that's you, then a quad-core would be advisable. The only exception would be if you're looking to play Supreme Commander as that is very CPU heavy. In general, games tend to use the graphics chip more than the CPU. Don't get me wrong, a good CPU is desired, but don't get carried away. At this point, there's very few games making use of a PhysX card, so if you aren't going to be playing much of the games that do use it, hang on to your cash. Additionally, if you must, wait until some PCIe versions come out. There's a die shrink in the works, and that will be nice since the chip will run cooler. Right now, newer motherboards have 2 or 3 PCI slots, which make them more of a precious commodity. One thing to be aware of with RAID 0 is that since the disks are striped and appear as one large hard drive, if one fails, half your data goes with it. Make sure you keep a regular backup regiment.
Very interesting... Well, to be honest I must say that I will be doing a lot of gaming and a lot of multitasking, although the multi tasking only really involves using skype, msn, the internet, windows media player and maybe a few other minor applications @ the same time... I would also maybe be doing something like using skype whilst playing TES4: Oblivion, and both are quite system intensive. I would like to have your honest opinion on what Kind of a system I should have? I.e. you mentioned that it isn't necessary to have a quad-core for gaming, assuming that core 2 duo's are sufficient enough, will something like an E6600 or E6700 be prefect for me? Also, I would like to point out that the system will have to last me a good 2 years (if not longer) before I really have to upgrade anything. An example is that I would like to be able to play all current & future games on high end specs such as Oblivion, Crysis, Alan Wake or Assassins Creed. Also, you mentioned something about Raid 0 HDD's, maybe is there something better I could use instead, something equally as good as the HDD I mentioned in my first post, but maybe safer? To summarise my needs, I would like to have a computer that will be able to meet all current and future needs @ least for the next 2/3 years without me having to worry about anything. I would like to be able to play all current and future games well, and would like to be able to do a number of things @ the same time without having to worry about lag, or my system restarting, or freezing. Thank you very much for any help, it is all very much appreciated.
It's a little hard to say exactly what you'll need to play Crysis or Alan Wake, as they simply aren't out. However, Oblivion is fairly graphics intensive, so while you don't want to necessarily go with a Sempron, the focus shouldn't be entirely on the CPU. Core 2 is king right now, so a mid-range selection, like the E6600 or E6700 should be fine. What I would invest in is a DX10 card for certain. RAID functionality requires at least 2 hard drives of equal size, but the minimum drive requirement depends on the level. RAID 0 is striping, and writes to both drives at the same time by equally distrubuting the bits across the drives. This is advantageous to speed, but the down fall is being more susceptible to data loss. The more drives in the array, the worse your odds get. RAID 1 is mirroring. It takes drive A and drive B and writes the same data, bit by bit to both of them, leaving you with an exact copy if one drive dies. The biggest downside is that this slows the disk writes down. Those are the two common RAID levels you will have, and these days, many motherboards feature them. We are also starting to see RAID 5 available, which is striping with parity. This requires a minimum of 3 drives (again, same capacity for best results). It uses a parity bit that's striped across the drives along with the data. This allows for a speed increase as like in RAID 0, but with the parity bit, you can suffer one drive failure in the array and pop in a new one that can be rebuilt from the information present on the remaining drives. The drawbacks here are the 3 drive minimum and that not all motherboards have this feature. If you're going to use RAID, this is probably your best option, but you may need to purchase a card that supports RAID 5. Keep this in mind for motherboard selection. RAID isn't a hard drive function. Any hard drive can be put in a RAID array. The only requirement is either a controller that allows for RAID or creating one under the OS--which most OS's these days allow for. Generally, the OS option is discouraged as your CPU ends up being the processor, instead of having dedicated hardware for it. There are other levels, but these are the most common.
umm, again, this is interesting, I was actually somewhat unaware of those points you made... Well, I will definitely take all of what you said into consideration. What I must add though is that while you state it is satisfactory to have an Intel Core 2 E6600 or 6700, how long will this actually last for, i.e. is there anything new CPU wise coming out this year or next that will be much better?? As for the DX10 cards I am definitely going to invest in one, there is no doubt HOWEVER, the question is as to which one? ATI have recently announced their new line of DX10 cards which should be out very soon if not already. It seems they have good additional features on the side such as the ability to play blue ray and HD DVD and other things (click here for more info) as compared to Nvidia's DX10 cards (i may be wrong though, so please check the links I have given, so that you are able to give me the best advice). However, aside from ATI's new line having some good features, it seems that on benchmark tests compared to Nvidia, Nvidias DX10 Line up is coming out on top. Could you please advise me which you would recommend to get - there is plenty of information on the 2 links I have given, plus any of your own knowledge would be great. Another thing I would like to point out, I have a budget of around £1500 to spend on a new PC - would you advise buying one (e.g. from dell etc) or building one?? Thank you again for any and all help!
Well, if you're not looking to watch Blu-Ray movies, the Radeon HD 2900XT starts to loose face rather quickly. Additionally, it's more of a power hog than the 8800's, which wouldn't be as bad if it was outperforming them. The performance may be fixed with some driver updates, but as it stands right now, if you want the better performing card, you're best bet is in a GeForce 8800GTX. Or, for similar performance, an 8800GTS, which generally can be had for less.
Well, in relation to blu-ray movies etc, I am waiting to see which comes out the winner - blu-ray or HD-DVD, untill then I have no plans to watch either as of yet. So your opinion is to go with Nvidia? Seems reasonable enough, so thanks on that front. One point i would like to ask is that, other than ATI's new line of cards, are Nvidia releasing any new ones that I should wait for before planning on buying an 8800?? Thank you for the help.
Given they just launced the 8800 Ultra, outside of any low-end 8 series, I don't think we'll see anything major until they release a new product line.
