I'm planning on getting these parts.

C

Caleb

Member
Some months later i'm planning on getting these computer parts:

Gigabyte P35C-DS3R Motherboard
2Gb Corsair 6400C4DHX Ram
Leadtek 8600GTS 256 PCI Express
320 Gig Western Digital Sata 2
e6850 Core 2 Duo CPU

If i'm to get a q6600 Core 2 Quad CPU I would need better CPU
cooling right?

I've got a back and front fans on my Case.

These parts altogether work well with a NeoHE 550 Powersupply right?
 
cooling is going to be pretty much the same..however the q6600 is going to run most programs slower right now due to it's 600 mhz difference. If you are going to be running many multi-threaded apps then the q6600 is a good idea. I would stick with the eseries you chose as it will run the vast majority of apps much faster. Otherwise the 550 watt psu should be fine for that machine.
 
No real reason to go quad, you will only be using 2 cores very short amount of time, so wasting the money on 2 more cores you won't be using is pointless...wait about 5 more years before picking up a quad, much cheaper, and by then, we MIGHT actually be using that many...
 
it won't take 5 years..if you are doing graphics or video then the quad is better. For gaming and regular desktop work the dual is best for now.
 
wait for the Intel E8200, it's $163 and can be OC'ed to over 4.0 Ghz, consumes less energy and runs cooler. and i would say to get the 8800 GT. the 8600 are old.
 
|CoR|Braveheart said:
wait for the Intel E8200, it's $163 and can be OC'ed to over 4.0 Ghz, consumes less energy and runs cooler. and i would say to get the 8800 GT. the 8600 are old.
Click to expand...

if ur gonna OC, just get a P4 prescott core that can be OC'ed to 5ghz >.>
 
I'm planning on getting retail version of Vista Premium instead of
Vista Premium OEM because the Retail Vista Premium license is more lenient than the OEM Version.
 
Corpfox said:
With AMD, you can easily buy the Athlon 64 X2 6400+, which is $100 less than your Intel choice.
Click to expand...
And still gets outrun or matched by the Intel part while the intel part uses less energy. I'm not willing to pay more money in my electric bill for $100 savings once.. I just got done buying a new dual core server and i have now have 3 servers on it thereby reducing my own IT electrical usage by 25%. That is going to save us over 10/month or $120 year in electrical costs just from IT operations alone.

I do not see the logic in paying for a cpu that is going to cost you more over the long run for less performance.
 
Hescominsoon said:
And still gets outrun or matched by the Intel part while the intel part uses less energy. I'm not willing to pay more money in my electric bill for $100 savings once.. I just got done buying a new dual core server and i have now have 3 servers on it thereby reducing my own IT electrical usage by 25%. That is going to save us over 10/month or $120 year in electrical costs just from IT operations alone.

I do not see the logic in paying for a cpu that is going to cost you more over the long run for less performance.
Click to expand...

You know, relating to the electric bill, it doesn't tell me how much "energy" I use up when I my AMD CPU.

How can you tell how much "energy" your CPU alone takes up on your electric bill, Hescominsoon?

If AMD really shows you pay more on your electric bill, I'd like to know and see that.

And If I have seen and known about it, then I'll switch to Intel.
 
I never said amd shows it..i know what i see on my electric bills. I also know that is backed up by the vast majority of information out there right now. I can also tell you i know i am using less energy on my ups which is what all of my IT backbone is on.(aka i have gone from 35% load to 10% load with the new server).

You don't have to believe me..nobody does...however nearly 20 years of personal knowledge and experience(most of that concentrated on hardware knowledge), and many many reviews and test that are freely available on the internet plus my own bills..it's very obvious. I am not doggedly going to support one brand over another..whichever one is better for hte given purpose wins. Right now intel is faster at the same clockspeed while requiring less energy. The price premium is canceled out by the extra hidden costs of an x2 system in the long run.


BTW if you are going to contradict me..please actually read my posts and/or don't try to put words into my posts that don't exist.
 
I can honestly see wanting the intel if you are trying to drop you UPS usage. Not a bad reason, but for shear saving bucks on bills, it's really minimal. National average electric rate is around 10 cents per KW/hr (where I'm at we are only 6.6 cents) so to save $10 a month your cpu will have to reduce it's power consumption by 137.5 Watts roughly. You can see some conversions here as a 100W light bulb costs around $0.24/day and to save $10 a month you need to save around $0.33/day. This is also figuring for a 24hr a day use. Not saying it's not possible, that just seems like a lot of power to reduce. If it can I may just be a converter.
 
Whon said:
I can honestly see wanting the intel if you are trying to drop you UPS usage. Not a bad reason, but for shear saving bucks on bills, it's really minimal. National average electric rate is around 10 cents per KW/hr (where I'm at we are only 6.6 cents) so to save $10 a month your cpu will have to reduce it's power consumption by 137.5 Watts roughly. You can see some conversions here as a 100W light bulb costs around $0.24/day and to save $10 a month you need to save around $0.33/day. This is also figuring for a 24hr a day use. Not saying it's not possible, that just seems like a lot of power to reduce. If it can I may just be a converter.
Click to expand...

You have to factor in the lower load on the server and the lifespan of the server which can lead to a major savings over 2-3 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top