Which cpu do you prefer?

Which processor do you prefer?

  • Intel Dual Core @ 3Ghz

    Votes: 5 33.3%

  • Intel Quad Core @ 2.4Ghz

    Votes: 10 66.7%
  • Total voters
    15
L

lilhermiejobo

Member
Mar 6, 2007
1,248
1
38
Which of the 2 do you feel is the better option?

I'm planning on building a new machine for recording due to Homeland Security nearly smashing mine into several pieces during a routine baggage check somehow mangling the face plate, ripping the cpu out while connected to everything inside still, and bending the case into a nice boomerang shape.
Having insurance didn't make any difference because I bought it used and I was instructed I could still file for anything I had a receipt for. Unfortunately I didn't plan on my things being destroyed so I didn't pack my receipts for the trip.
The computer will have to wait until after my wedding but its high on my priority list to get back to recording as soon as possible.
 
When I finally build my DAW I plan on it having more than I need purely because I'm tired of upgrading and wasting time and money. I figure to to it one good time to last me as long as possible. That and this will be my first brand new build for myself. Everything I've had up to date was used, upgraded, free or out of the trash.
 
A bit of an ignorant question for you kev, what do you mean by running on air?
I've been reading up on OC'ing the cpu but have never done so as of yet until I feel comfortable in understanding exactly how to.
Also, I see you've got the one I'm looking at, by chance are you running 32 or 64 bit windows? I've read a lot that 32bit will only read up to 3gb of ram so the extra gb would be useless. I don't have any personal experience to back up those claims but I'd rather not risk wasting the money if I don't have to.

LHJ.
 
depending on what price you can get the quad...the advantage will be minimal, & that's providing the software you have even takes advantage of it. most software out right now doesn't take advantage of quad cores. generally a faster dual core is better than a slower quad
check the benchmarks
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000942.html

so i'd say only go for it if your software supports it
 
I'd be getting OEM cpu&mobo combo dual or quad, either way for around 300 or less.
I'm running 32bit xp pro & the 1st release of nuendo with an ass load of free plugs I found through this forum.
Also I found quite a few refurbished/recertified media center computers online fully loaded (quad core, 3gb ram, dual hdd's, 8600gt gfx, etc) for under 700 including shipping. I'm not sure which is worth more to me, getting a badass computer for cheap or the satisfaction of knowing I built my DAW.
 
Zuranthus said:
depending on what price you can get the quad...the advantage will be minimal, & that's providing the software you have even takes advantage of it. most software out right now doesn't take advantage of quad cores. generally a faster dual core is better than a slower quad
check the benchmarks
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000942.html

so i'd say only go for it if your software supports it
Click to expand...

As far as I know, all mainstream DAW software supports multi-core processing right now. And if Lilhermie is planning on this computer being mainly his DAW, then he should get a quad core cpu. If it was centered around gaming, yes a dual core would be better, because few games, if any, support quad cores right now.

If you are interested in overclocking, use your current desktop (if you have one, bad idea to oc a laptop) to practice. I wouldn't risk it with a 200+ dollar cpu. My advice is to go slowwwwwwwwwly if you do. OCing on air means you are using either the stock or an aftermarket heatsink/fan to cool the cpu. You can overclock any cpu to a certain extent with stock cooling, but it can only go so far. If you plan on doing any OCing at all past 200 mhz or so, get aftermarket cooling. Arctic Cooling makes good stuff for socket 775.
 
lilhermiejobo said:
A bit of an ignorant question for you kev, what do you mean by running on air?
I've been reading up on OC'ing the cpu but have never done so as of yet until I feel comfortable in understanding exactly how to.
Also, I see you've got the one I'm looking at, by chance are you running 32 or 64 bit windows? I've read a lot that 32bit will only read up to 3gb of ram so the extra gb would be useless. I don't have any personal experience to back up those claims but I'd rather not risk wasting the money if I don't have to.

LHJ.
Click to expand...

Running on air is running with air cooling aka cpu fan/heatsync, although you should get more than the stock cooler. I've found artic cooling freezer 7 is awesome, although have a scythe ninja in mine right now. The Q6600 has been tested a stable chip running at 6ghz per core with liquid nitrogen cooling. You're correct about the RAM limitation- although service pack 1 vista now recognises 4GB on my hardware list i expect its cosmetic. Ive encountered no use yet for all the RAM and with the problems currently associated with anything 64 bit, e.g. incompatibilitys/drivers im steering well clear.

Overclocking (without going into too much detail) is a simple balance of your Bus speed in the bios (multiplied by a given number known as the "multiplier" funnily enough) with voltage. This gives you your value in Ghz. More speed = more voltage needed, more voltage = more heat generated. Heat is bad! Q6600 can handle core temperatures of 100 degrees per core btw (not that i'd encourage it!). Best bang for the buck chip right now hands down, for the shear fact that mine is running faster than a QX9775 (£900 not £130) :loco:
 
kev said:
The Q6600 has been tested a stable chip running at 6ghz per core with liquid nitrogen cooling. Best bang for the buck chip right now hands down, for the shear fact that mine is running faster than a QX9775 (£900 not £130) :loco:
Click to expand...

I'm looking at/considering liquid cooling (although not nitrogen) I'm wondering if it'd be sufficient enough to handle OC'd cpu.
The kit in question I found online for around $150. I'm wondering if I could replace the liquid in the cooling unit with anti-freeze/coolant, like from a motorvehicle if it wouldn't pose any major threats to the stability of the cooling unit itself, as in not mucking up the pumps and whatnot.
My theory is that if its industrial grade enough to handle cooling a motor vehicle engine getting up to a couple hundred degrees, it'd prove to be beneficial to a smaller scale computer system reaching nowhere near 1/2 of that.
 
lilhermiejobo said:
I'm looking at/considering liquid cooling (although not nitrogen) I'm wondering if it'd be sufficient enough to handle OC'd cpu.
The kit in question I found online for around $150. I'm wondering if I could replace the liquid in the cooling unit with anti-freeze/coolant, like from a motorvehicle if it wouldn't pose any major threats to the stability of the cooling unit itself, as in not mucking up the pumps and whatnot.
My theory is that if its industrial grade enough to handle cooling a motor vehicle engine getting up to a couple hundred degrees, it'd prove to be beneficial to a smaller scale computer system reaching nowhere near 1/2 of that.
Click to expand...

Liquid cooling would be absolutely perfect for OC'ing, likely allowing you to go even farther than on air. I don't know about the fluid, but I seem to have heard that people use engine coolant and it works wonderfully. Do some research on that, as well as which kit to buy. Oh and I've also heard that kits are risky business sometimes, and that buying the separate pieces just as you would for a self built computer is better.
 
I'd advise against liquid cooling, its a massive hassel and unless you are on a fairly expensive setup you dont really see the benefits. Those benefits are only a little more than air, for instance you'll probably get a q6600 up to 4ghz on water rather than 3.6ghz on air.
 
kev said:
I'd advise against liquid cooling, its a massive hassel and unless you are on a fairly expensive setup you dont really see the benefits. Those benefits are only a little more than air, for instance you'll probably get a q6600 up to 4ghz on water rather than 3.6ghz on air.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's not worth it for such a small performance increase.

If you can spring the extra money for the Q9300 2.5ghz quad-core, which runs cooler due to being a part of the new 45nm line of processors, you could probably OC higher than 3.6ghz on air with an aftermarket cooler.

Also get some arctic cooling MX-2 thermal paste. Best stuff out there right now. This is the gunk that goes between your heatsink and the processor, in case you didn't know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DanLights
  • Poll
Which Intro do you prefer?
Replies
15
Views
945
Bar
DanLights
D
KeithRT99
Do you think I'm getting Screwed on ebay?
Replies
9
Views
538
Bar
KeithTidd
K
edgeofthorns
  • Poll
WHICH ANTHRAX DO YOU PREFER?
Replies
29
Views
1K
ProgPower USA
metropolisimages
M
T
  • Poll
BNW vs SIT - which do you prefer?
Replies
49
Views
687
Maiden Downunder
spawn
S
ForHerDeadEyes
What kind of CPU do you guys have?
Replies
52
Views
3K
Backline
==>Alb<==
&
Top Bottom
Back