Price diff. on these dual core chips?

  • Thread starter Thread starter brett
  • Start date Start date
B

brett

These are CPUs available for a specific desktop series. The 1.80ghz is
a default. I want as much performance as possible. I'll have 4GB RAM
and two 7200RPM HDs. There will be multiple development evironments
(IDEs) open and possibly two Virtual PC machines running at once.
Taking the prices into consideration, is it best to stay with the
1.86ghz cpu or is there noticable performance gain at higher GHZs? Is
moving up worth the price? How far up?

Intel(R) Core(TM) 2 Duo processor E6300 (1.86GHz)
Included in price

Intel(R) Core(TM) 2 Duo processor E6400 (2.13GHz)
Exceptional dual-core performance, power, and reliability
+$90.00

Intel(R) Core(TM) 2 Duo processor E6600 (2.4GHz)
Unbeatable dual core performance for multi-tasking, gaming, and video
editing!
+$190.00

Thanks,
Brett
 
Intel(R) Core(TM) 2 Duo processor E6600 (2.4GHz)
Unbeatable dual core performance for multi-tasking, gaming, and video
editing!
+$190.00
Click to expand...

That chip has double the cache, and faster speed,
probably worth the extra cost.

But street price difference between the 6300 and
the 6600 is only about $130.





--

Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.

This sig censored by the Office of Home, Land & Planet Insecurity...

Remove XYZ to email me
 
The said:
That chip has double the cache, and faster speed,
probably worth the extra cost.

But street price difference between the 6300 and
the 6600 is only about $130.
Click to expand...

If I want to see what prices are for putting this machine together
myself, what is a good website to use for everything (HD, motherboard,
cpu, chassis, etc)?

Thanks,
Brett
 
These are CPUs available for a specific desktop series. The 1.80ghz is
a default. I want as much performance as possible. I'll have 4GB RAM
and two 7200RPM HDs. There will be multiple development evironments
(IDEs) open and possibly two Virtual PC machines running at once.
Taking the prices into consideration, is it best to stay with the
1.86ghz cpu or is there noticable performance gain at higher GHZs? Is
moving up worth the price? How far up?

Intel(R) Core(TM) 2 Duo processor E6300 (1.86GHz)
Included in price

Intel(R) Core(TM) 2 Duo processor E6400 (2.13GHz)
Exceptional dual-core performance, power, and reliability
+$90.00

Intel(R) Core(TM) 2 Duo processor E6600 (2.4GHz)
Unbeatable dual core performance for multi-tasking, gaming, and video
editing!
+$190.00
Click to expand...

At the price difference and considering you're shelling out for 4GB of
DRAM, to me it's a no brainer - the 6600. It has double the cache which is
IMO, a major contribution to the performance in *some* of the benchmark
tasks.

Which OS are you going to use? You know that WinXP 32-bit will not see the
full 4GB but some amount around 3.5GB, a bit less, or a bit more, depending
on how much memory your video card has?
 
Which OS are you going to use? You know that WinXP 32-bit will not see the
full 4GB but some amount around 3.5GB, a bit less, or a bit more, depending
on how much memory your video card has?
Click to expand...

Thanks George. I'll start with XP and then upgrade to Vista Ultimate,
which all editions will support 4GB.

Here's the full setup:

- eVGA 512-P2-N637-AR GeForce 7950GT 512MB GDDR3 PCI Express x16 KO
Superclocked Video Card - Retail

- eVGA 122-CK-NF68-AR Socket T (LGA 775) NVIDIA nForce 680i SLI ATX
Intel
Motherboard - Retail

- (2) OCZ Platinum 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400)
Dual
Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model OCZ2P8002GK - Retail

- (2) Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3320620AS (Perpendicular Recording
Technology) 320GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive - OEM

and of course the E6600. Do you think the above is fine?

This may sound counter productive but I'll be using Remote Desktop to
use the above system. RD works fine with a good connection and system.

Thanks,
Brett
 
Thanks George. I'll start with XP and then upgrade to Vista Ultimate,
which all editions will support 4GB.

Here's the full setup:

- eVGA 512-P2-N637-AR GeForce 7950GT 512MB GDDR3 PCI Express x16 KO
Superclocked Video Card - Retail

- eVGA 122-CK-NF68-AR Socket T (LGA 775) NVIDIA nForce 680i SLI ATX
Intel
Motherboard - Retail

- (2) OCZ Platinum 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400)
Dual
Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model OCZ2P8002GK - Retail

- (2) Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3320620AS (Perpendicular Recording
Technology) 320GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive - OEM

and of course the E6600. Do you think the above is fine?
Click to expand...

It looks like pretty powerful stuff:-) but do check out how people are
making out with the nForce 680i chipset, which is quite new. Any problem
you might have is not going to be addressed by nVidia directly - they just
don't deal with end-users. As you may have discovered they run a forum
here http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showforum=34 but they do not
respond to issues brought up and there's no sign that they even monitor it.
The funny thing is that they recommend www.nforcershq.com as a "great site
for nVidia users..." and that's worth a look too.

I have a lot of experience with their AMD chipsets and I'm a bit
discouraged right now - I'm weary of their attempts to hide hardware flaws
with driver updates; the worst thing is that their newer chipsets seem to
get worse rather than better and their driver updates are just as likely to
break your system as to fix it.

There's a report in their abovementioned forum that the X-Fi crackle issue
is "back" with the 680i and some people have reported SATA problems, of
which there is a long history with previous chipsets and certain HDDs;
Seagate is the best bet here though. Mind you Intel chipsets have had some
trouble with SATA II as well - from my POV, the mfrs *all* jumped the gun
on SATA II... kinda daft given that it brings absolutely no performance
benefit and won't for a couple of years.

You don't say whether you are getting two 7950GTs or if you intend to go
SLI down the road but if you don't need it, I'd look at an Intel chipset
for the moment.
This may sound counter productive but I'll be using Remote Desktop to
use the above system. RD works fine with a good connection and system.
Click to expand...

I'm curious why such a high-end video card then?
 
I'm curious why such a high-end video card then?

Good catch and you're right to ask. After posting it seemed like I
don't even need it. Just something basic will do. I decided on this
for $62 (PNY VCG7300LXPB GeForce 7300LE 256MB GDDR2 PCI Express x16 Low
Profile Video Card - Retail)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16814133171. The
thing I wonder about is this: Vista will rate hardware on install. If
the hardware gets a low rating, does Vista auto diable certain
features? The above video card should do fine in Vista but if it gets a
rating that causes Vista to disable Aero, I won't see Aero features
when I remote in. If Aero is enabled but my remote machine can't
handle the video, what then?

The remote computer has an NVidia Gforce FX Go5700 with 128MB and
DirectX 9. Those are Vista minimums. I'll make due for the time being
but will upgrade the remote computer as well.

Brett
 
Good catch and you're right to ask. After posting it seemed like I
don't even need it. Just something basic will do. I decided on this
for $62 (PNY VCG7300LXPB GeForce 7300LE 256MB GDDR2 PCI Express x16 Low
Profile Video Card - Retail)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16814133171. The
thing I wonder about is this: Vista will rate hardware on install. If
the hardware gets a low rating, does Vista auto diable certain
features? The above video card should do fine in Vista but if it gets a
rating that causes Vista to disable Aero, I won't see Aero features
when I remote in. If Aero is enabled but my remote machine can't
handle the video, what then?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the practical reqts. for things like Aero might be but
I'd think you'd need a capable card on both systems for RD. AFAICT all you
need for Aero is a WDDM driver but what the speed/performance issues might
be I dunno. I can't see anything specific on this but I'd expect you'd
need a DirectX 10 card, which is not even available yet, to get the Flip 3D
umm, experience... and a bottom-end card might act sluggish??

A low-end card seems the way to go for the moment until the DirectX 10 jobs
come out.
 
A low-end card seems the way to go for the moment until the DirectX 10 jobs
come out.
Click to expand...

No - DirectX 9 is all that is needed:
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...deo+card+requirement&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4

"What graphics card should I use for Windows Presentation Foundation?
Any high performance DX9 Pixel Shader 2.0 card will give good results.
The fastest PS 2.0 card with the most memory your bank account can
afford is the ticket.
Avoid the low-end cards-such as ATI 9200 and below, nVidia 5200 and
below-and go for the high-end X800 or 6800 if you can afford it."

Brett
 
Good catch and you're right to ask. After posting it seemed like I
don't even need it. Just something basic will do. I decided on this
for $62 (PNY VCG7300LXPB GeForce 7300LE 256MB GDDR2 PCI Express x16 Low
Profile Video Card - Retail)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16814133171. The
thing I wonder about is this: Vista will rate hardware on install. If
the hardware gets a low rating, does Vista auto diable certain
features? The above video card should do fine in Vista but if it gets a
rating that causes Vista to disable Aero, I won't see Aero features
when I remote in. If Aero is enabled but my remote machine can't
handle the video, what then?

The remote computer has an NVidia Gforce FX Go5700 with 128MB and
DirectX 9. Those are Vista minimums. I'll make due for the time being
but will upgrade the remote computer as well.

Brett
Click to expand...

I use Remote Desktop on my XP PC to view my Vista PC and the Aero
features don't show up, odd since both computers are capable of full
Aero features, so I guess remote desktop just doesn't transfer that Aero
stuff?

Ed
 
I use Remote Desktop on my XP PC to view my Vista PC and the Aero
features don't show up, odd since both computers are capable of full
Aero features, so I guess remote desktop just doesn't transfer that Aero
stuff?

Ed
Click to expand...

Hi Ed. What else have you noticed with that setup in regards to Vista?
Everything seem to perform fine?

I wonder if this is the case for Terminal Services?

Thanks,
Brett
 
No - DirectX 9 is all that is needed:
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...deo+card+requirement&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4

"What graphics card should I use for Windows Presentation Foundation?
Any high performance DX9 Pixel Shader 2.0 card will give good results.
The fastest PS 2.0 card with the most memory your bank account can
afford is the ticket.
Avoid the low-end cards-such as ATI 9200 and below, nVidia 5200 and
below-and go for the high-end X800 or 6800 if you can afford it."
Click to expand...

All I meant is that AIUI, DirectX 10 will be in Vista so there will be some
incentive for some people to have a capable video card, so there's no point
in lashing out for a current non-DX 10 card now.

Its not clear to me what the relationship is between WPF and Aero or Flip
3D but PS 2.0 is regarded as a "Pass" for Vista and PS 3.0 is "preferred"
with DX 10 support as the top end. If M$ thinks, however, that business
users are going to go out and buy X800s or 6800s to get the optimal
experience, they are dreaming.
 
brett said:
These are CPUs available for a specific desktop series. The 1.80ghz is
a default. I want as much performance as possible. I'll have 4GB RAM
and two 7200RPM HDs. There will be multiple development evironments
(IDEs) open and possibly two Virtual PC machines running at once.
Taking the prices into consideration, is it best to stay with the
1.86ghz cpu or is there noticable performance gain at higher GHZs? Is
moving up worth the price? How far up?

Intel(R) Core(TM) 2 Duo processor E6300 (1.86GHz)
Included in price

Intel(R) Core(TM) 2 Duo processor E6400 (2.13GHz)
Exceptional dual-core performance, power, and reliability
+$90.00
Click to expand...

Online price-difference between these two is only about $40, making
the E6400 the best value in the line-up, IMO. The E6600 is also a
reasonable value for a bit more $$.
 
Online price-difference between these two is only about $40, making
the E6400 the best value in the line-up, IMO. The E6600 is also a
reasonable value for a bit more $$.
Click to expand...

Yep - I went with the E6600 and 4 1GB sticks of DDR2 667. I thought
about 800, which my board supports but that's a $65 - $100+ increase x
2 = $130 - $200+ increase. I'll save that price difference and never
perceive any difference in speed between 667 and 800.

Brett
 
Hi Ed. What else have you noticed with that setup in regards to Vista?
Everything seem to perform fine?
Click to expand...
I guess, I haven't used Vista that much but it's really nothing to get
all excited about.
I wonder if this is the case for Terminal Services? No clue.

Thanks,
Brett
Click to expand...

IMO Vista is way overpriced, so unless it does something for you that XP
can't, don't even bother.
Ed
 
Back
Top