1 |
Daniel Iliev wrote: |
2 |
> I've decided to get an Intel based box, but I've not been following |
3 |
> closely the hardware development for more than 5 years. Another |
4 |
> trouble is that most of the people I can ask don't use Gentoo and they |
5 |
> miss the point of "much compiling". So, I need your help. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> 1) CPU: |
8 |
> |
9 |
> model,CPU Freq,FSB Freq,cache,technology |
10 |
> |
11 |
> E8400, 3.00GHz, 1333MHz, 6MB, 45nm |
12 |
> Q8200, 2.33GHz, 1333MHz, 4MB, 45nm |
13 |
> Q6600, 2.40GHz, 1066MHz, 8MB, 65nm |
14 |
> |
15 |
> Which one? (please, consider overclocking). |
16 |
|
17 |
I would get the E8400 because it overclocks good. Upping the FSB from |
18 |
333 to 400 will give you 3.6GHz (the CPU has a multiplier of x9). That |
19 |
means you can get DDR2 800MHz RAM and run it with an FSB:DRAM ratio of |
20 |
1:1 (400 FSB = 800 DDR). 1:1 FSB:DRAM is the fastest configuration for |
21 |
Intel systems. If you get DDR2 1066 RAM, then you can up the FSB even |
22 |
more while retaining the 1:1 FSB:DRAM ratio. |
23 |
|
24 |
The E8400 can go up to about 4.4GHz with a good aftermarket cooler. |
25 |
Don't overclock it at all though with the stock cooler. |
26 |
|
27 |
|
28 |
> On the local market those are in the same price range and I'm going to |
29 |
> take Q6600 for the bigger cache (8MB). Is that the correct choice? |
30 |
|
31 |
The Q6600 has *less* cache per core than the E8400. The E8400 has 3MB |
32 |
per core while the Q6600 has 2MB per core. Yes, it's shared cache, but |
33 |
for emerges all the core will be used. |
34 |
|
35 |
The reason I recommend the dual core over the quad core is that |
36 |
compiling isn't the primary use of a desktop PC. Application |
37 |
performance is, that's why the higher speed per core of the E8400 is IMO |
38 |
better. |
39 |
|
40 |
|
41 |
> 2) Main board. |
42 |
> |
43 |
> I was advised to get Asus P5K Premium (P35, ICH9) for Q6600. The thing |
44 |
> is there are models from the P5Q series (like P5Q3) which have a newer |
45 |
> chipset (P45, ICH10) but the same price. I can't understand why should |
46 |
> I choose the premium mobo even it's an older model. Please, advise. |
47 |
|
48 |
I'd recommend the Asus P5E is you can find it. It's X38 based (slightly |
49 |
more overclockable then P35 and P45, supports crossfire PCIe x16 while |
50 |
P35 and P45 only have PCIe x8 in crossfire) with FSB1600 and its price |
51 |
is very good (130€ here). |
52 |
|
53 |
|
54 |
> 3) DDR2 |
55 |
> |
56 |
> 600,800 or 1066? The thing confusing me is that the newer CPUs run at |
57 |
> 1333MHz and the older (Q6600) at 1066. So, which DDR2? |
58 |
|
59 |
It doesn't matter if the CPU is FSB1333 or FSB1066 because you can run |
60 |
the RAM at whatever speed you want. But as I mentioned earlier, the |
61 |
fastest FSB:DRAM configuration on Intel chips is 1:1, so to up the FSB |
62 |
above 400 while retaining this 1:1 ratio, you'll need 1066 RAM. The |
63 |
timings don't matter that much on Intel, so 5-5-5-15 RAM will perform |
64 |
virtually just as well as 4-4-4-12 RAM. |
65 |
|
66 |
|
67 |
> 4) Overclock |
68 |
> |
69 |
> I intend to overclock the system but not extremely. I've been told |
70 |
> Q6600 would go up to 3GHz w/o any trouble. Is that true? |
71 |
|
72 |
Depends on the CPU (not all Q6600 are equal) and motherboard. But in |
73 |
general, 3GHz is easy to get with that CPU. Note: only with a good |
74 |
aftermarket cooler! Don't try with the stock one. |
75 |
|
76 |
|
77 |
|
78 |
> How high |
79 |
> would the other two CPUs go w/o additional cooling and compromising |
80 |
> the stability? |
81 |
|
82 |
You don't overclock with the stock cooler. Unless you consider an |
83 |
overclock of, say, 200MHz as overclocking (the Q6600 for example can go |
84 |
from 2.4GHz to 2.6GHz with the stock cooler). Higher than that may be |
85 |
stable at the beginning, but the life of the CPU is greatly diminished. |
86 |
It won't live for long if it runs at 70C while with a better cooler it |
87 |
would run at 50C. |
88 |
|
89 |
If you intend to only "overclock" that much, then there's no point in |
90 |
going Intel at all. I'd recommend AMD in that case. |