Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: Krusty on April 13, 2007, 08:44:08 AM
-
Well, if I get my tax return, I might spend $180 on a conroe CPU (E6300 I think). Or if I get a nice tax return, I might spend $30 more and jump up to the next chip (E6400 I think -- the naming convention eludes me right now).
I've got an ASRock board that is conroe-compatible (one of the reasons I bought it), 1 GB DDR1, Ge7600GTS, and you can check my sig for more details, but an older Prescott P4 2.66GHz.
As is, my FPS is good, but could be better. I know I'm being limited by my old CPU.
So I'm thinking of getting either the lowest conroe or the second lowest. Even the 1.8GHz would blow away the chip I've got now.
So, some questions:
1) Is there any major difference between the two lowest chips? I won't be overclocking much if at all. My gameport flight controls don't like being overclocked, every time I've tried it.
2) On newegg I saw a cheap chip listed as core 2 duo, but it was "allendale" -- is this new? The new "celeron", so to speak? What's the scoop, and am I better off with the conroe?
3) the search on newegg for "conroe" cores also turns up some Xeon chips. From the practical standpoint, I don't need those, and should avoid 'em, right?
Any other thoughts? I don't want to spend too much (I've got bills to pay).
I'd LIKE to get 2 GB of RAM, but here's the problem: I'm trying to modernize the PC. I've got the ASRock Dual-775 board, with DDR2 and DDR1 slots. I can only use one type at a time. My 1 GB stick is DDR1 from my old motherboard. If I get another 1 GB stick of DDR1 I'm taking a step backward, but I've got 2 GB of RAM. If I get a stick of 1 GB DDR2 I'm spending money for the same end result. If I get 2 GB of DDR2 I'm spending a lot more money (harder to justify).
-
Oh, and while we're on the subject, is CAS of 6 high for DDR2? I'm looking through 533, 667, and 800 mhz sticks of 2GB. It's not as much as I'd thought, but still somewhat expensive.
It means I won't get dual channel, though, with just 1 stick :)
EDIT: Errr... 2x 1gb sticks is less than 1 2gb stick. What's the benefit of the 2gb stick? Is it simply "more capacity"?
-
Thats just it more capacity. However if I were you I would go with the 800 versions of DDR2. They seem to be where the most bang for your dollar amount is in my mind.
-
I'm still not sold on the cost of getting new ram, but I'm considering it.
1x2GB runs about $160, while 2x1GB runs about $120. Both 800mhz. If I did, I think I'd go with 2x1, as I've only got 2 DDR2 slots that means I'd have to wait to upgrade my mobo (later on) if I wanted more RAM later.
Any thoughts about the CPU questions?
-
If memory serves me right, the E6300 and E6400 are Allendale chips - they have the same bus etc but only 2mb cache, not like 4mb of the Conroe E6600 and up.
Definately go with the 800mhz DDR2, the price difference right now is that anything lower is futile. The 800mhz will allow for future upgradeability with faster FSB processors.
If you want to save $30, you can get the E6300 and very easily overclock it to the speed of the E6400, even on the stock cooler.
I run an E6400 with 667mhz ram, but I have mine overclocked mildly to 2.66ghz, this is a 1:1 ratio of FSB to DDR2 which is ideal. If you're running stock and not plan on overclocking, you'll see little difference in performance between 533mhz to 667mhz to 800mhz because the processor cannot utilize the faster DDR2 speeds beyond the 1:1 ratio of the 533mhz (which matches the E6xxx 1066mhz FSB, DDR2 533x2=1066).
Make sure you pick out a ram with good timings. Aim for something around 4-4-4-12.
-
As for the ram, WITHOUT A DOUBT get the 2x1gb. This way the ram will run in dual channel which gives you roughly a 15% performance gain over 1x2gb chip. This will leave you with 2 more slots for ram.
2gb is a good ammount for Windows XP, XP cannot use more than 3gb effectively anyways. For Vista you can go up to some insane number (like 80gb, even though motherboards really dont support more than 8gb right now). 2gb will give you good performance in Vista.
-
Actually, there are motherboards which do support up to 64GB of RAM. Just FYI.
-
Originally posted by Fulmar
This will leave you with 2 more slots for ram.
He only has two RAM slots from what he said.
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Actually, there are motherboards which do support up to 64GB of RAM. Just FYI.
Server dweeb. :D
-
Originally posted by Fulmar
If memory serves me right, the E6300 and E6400 are Allendale chips - they have the same bus etc but only 2mb cache, not like 4mb of the Conroe E6600 and up.
According to newegg those are conroe cores, with only 1 allendale on their books being listed as a "E4300" 1.8GHz.
Originally posted by Fulmar
Definately go with the 800mhz DDR2, the price difference right now is that anything lower is futile. The 800mhz will allow for future upgradeability with faster FSB processors.
If you want to save $30, you can get the E6300 and very easily overclock it to the speed of the E6400, even on the stock cooler.
I run an E6400 with 667mhz ram, but I have mine overclocked mildly to 2.66ghz, this is a 1:1 ratio of FSB to DDR2 which is ideal. If you're running stock and not plan on overclocking, you'll see little difference in performance between 533mhz to 667mhz to 800mhz because the processor cannot utilize the faster DDR2 speeds beyond the 1:1 ratio of the 533mhz (which matches the E6xxx 1066mhz FSB, DDR2 533x2=1066).
Make sure you pick out a ram with good timings. Aim for something around 4-4-4-12.
Thanks for pointing out the 533x2 bit, hadn't thought of that. I probably will get 667 or 800 though (if I get it) just so I'm prepared for the 5+ years it has to last.
-
Sorry I misspoke before. From Wikipedia on the Allendale/Conroe.
"Allendale
There is some contention as to whether currently-available low-end Core 2 Duo desktop processors (E6300, at 1.86 GHz and E6400, at 2.13 GHz, both with 2MiB L2 cache) are specimens of the Allendale core. Until Q1 2007, all E6300 and E6400 processors released were Conroe (4 MiB L2 cache) cores with half their L2 cache disabled. The Allendale core, manufactured with 2 MiB L2 cache in total, offers a smaller die size and therefore greater yields.
Quoted from The Tech Report:
You'll find plenty of sources that will tell you the code name for these 2MB Core 2 Duo processors is "Allendale," but Intel says otherwise. These CPUs are still code-named "Conroe," which makes sense since they're the same physical chips with half of their L2 cache disabled. Intel may well be cooking up a chip code-named Allendale with 2MB of L2 cache natively, but this is not that chip."
-
Ah, thanks for the clarification!
That begs the question, however, if it's a 4MB chip with half that disabled, can you re-enable it?? :t
Kinda like unlocking pipes on the Ge6800s, I mean.
Anyways I think I'll go with the E6400 and see if saving $30-$40 will let me squeaze in a couple GB of DDR2.
I'd like to spend $15 and get a new joystick while I'm at it.
-
As much as I've tried to find, I don't think you can get 4mb out of them.
-
Suits me. Even stock (which is how I will run it) it'll blow away what I've got!!!
-
I had a similar system to yours. P4 2.8ghz non-HT, 1gb ram, geforce 5900xt (it was free). Built mine in January, lasted almost 4 years. Always liked my Intels.
-
I've got the same ASROCK motherboard, E6300, 2X1GB DDR2.. I couldn't be happier.. this thing is BY FAR the fastest computer I've ever used.. for EVERYTHING, including gaming.. even with my GeForce 6200 AGP video. Of course I haven't used high-end "several thousand dollar" gaming systems.. but I can honestly say thing thing just.. rocks.
When I built this setup, I just couldn't justify the extra money to upgrade for the E6400.. I was in the same boat... 2GB ram with E6300, or 1GB with the E6400... I chose the extra memory instead.
Good luck!
-
Tigger, thanks for the little testimonial. I think I'll see if I can't swing it so I can get less CPU but more RAM as you mentioned.
-
D'OH!!!
Checked my mobo manual. Only supports 2GB max (so a 1x2GB stick is worthless), but it also only supports up to 667/533.
At first I was thinking of purchasing this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231087
but that's 800mhz. It's one of the few that sports 4-4-4-12 timings.
In the PC5400 667mhz range I found this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820609219
and it comes with heat spreaders (what I want) but it's doesn't list the timings it runs at. Has anybody ever heard of "super talent"? On the plus side, it's considerably less expensive. It's got some pretty sad reviews.
Looks like the next acceptable one up on the list jumps back to what the G.Skill 800mhz cost,
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820141211
at the same timings (4-4-4-12), it also has heat spreaders but comes from pqi, a brand of which I have little knowledge.
questions:
1) How important are the timings? Will 4-4-4-12 be noticably faster in reducing hitches/stutters than 5-5-5-15 and higher ones?
2) will 800mhz "clock down" to 667 even if it doesn't advertise that it can do so? Or should I specifically get 667 to avoid any problems with my mobo?
-
Answers:
1) Yes, 4-4-4-12 is a good improvement over 5-5-5-15. Can't give you numbers off the top of my head but from my experience from what I've seen, lower timings are worth it.
2) Yes 800mhz will clock to 667 or 533, whatever. $135 is a great price for that g.skill as I paid $220 3 months ago for almost the same thing.
3) Avoid pqi like the plague.
-
Originally posted by Fulmar
Answers:
1) Yes, 4-4-4-12 is a good improvement over 5-5-5-15. Can't give you numbers off the top of my head but from my experience from what I've seen, lower timings are worth it.
2) Yes 800mhz will clock to 667 or 533, whatever. $135 is a great price for that g.skill as I paid $220 3 months ago for almost the same thing.
3) Avoid pqi like the plague.
I'm glad you mentioned that last one :D
It was my primary choice for a little while (right up until I read this).
-
E4300 is the start of what will be the low cost conroe familiy, has no virtualisation and is slower than E6300 but not much.
The budget family will eventually go off with less cache mem, but i think they didnt so far and probably wont eaven be sold before the next family of conroes. Intel anounced another price cut in end of april i think.
-
Hrm.... Maybe I can wait to the end of the month, then?
I don't know how long it'll take to get my tax returns, either.
I'll see how long I can wait before getting impatient :lol
-
Off the top of my head, April 23rd is the Intel price drop. It's going to be significant, so it is definantely worth waiting for.
-
I hope you're right about that one :)
I might snag the ram while it's cheap, because you never know when the price'll jump! I've got a pair of 1GB sticks lined up at about $115 (USD). If the CPU price drop is sometime next week then I think I'll just get them together. If it doesn't drop I might just get the RAM and wait for newegg to drop their prices.
-
Actually, I think it is 4/22 when Intel announces the new prices. And from what I have gathered, they are only lowering the upper end prices. The low end Conroe's may stay about the same.
-
Awww...
Well, I'll wait and see, anyways. Maybe the 6400 will drop a bit so I can get it instead of the 6300 :cool:
-
The 6300 and 6400 dropped about $15, but the 6600 and the 6700 dropped quite a bit (and consequently are now sold out on NewEgg -- happened rather quickly, to boot!)
I'll probaly put the order in soon. Price drop helps me justify it to the family :D
-
I just looked at Newegg and they're listing the 6700 @ $515. That's not the new price is it?
-
Wierd... I checked it earlier today and it wasn't that much. It was also sold out!
They must have just got a shipment, bumping the price back up, because now there's a couple new CPUs out there!
You know the E6300, now there's the E6320. The -20s have the 4MB cache on the chip, instead of 2MB. I heard they were going to put the 4MB on the lesser chips, but I didn't know it would be so soon. There's also a E6420 with the same feature.
The -20s have the same price the -00s had previously. The -00s are now about $15-20 less.
Since these just came out today, my question is:
Is there any difference in performance between 4MB and 2MB cache on the E6300 chip?
-
My friend is looking at building a new system and on Saturday I checked the prices on Newegg and it seems they were lowered already. They had the E6600 for $230, when I built mine in January the E6600 was $320 something and my E6400 was about $221.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Is there any difference in performance between 4MB and 2MB cache on the E6300 chip?
I couldn't find the article on the internet but when I was researching my computer I was debating between the 4mb E6600 and the 2mb E6400. In the test they overclocked the E6400 to the stock speed of the E6600 and found very small differences in the test they did. At the end of the article they suggested the E6400 fits the bill just fine and you could save $ by a medium overclock to the E6600 speed.
-
Thanks for the tip, Fulmar!
-
Fulmar, check the prices again. I think that they were still entering them into the system. The 6700 is now down to 230 or 320 or something. Much lower than the 530 listed earlier today.
Also, the 2MB/4MB options are almost identical in price to each other, now!
-
The 6700 is $348 as of about 5 minutes ago. Glad I didn't order one @ $510 a couple of hours ago!:D
-
Well the CPU passed the budget committee, but for now the RAM did not. Perhaps in a few weeks I'll pass that bill through the committee again.
Going for the 6420, if I can. Only $20 more than the 6320, and seems quite a bit better, for that $20.
-
Ordered one E6420. Hope to get it by Friday so I can install it on the weekend. Or Thursday so I can install it for FSO... Let's see if the extra $2.99 "rush" is worth it :)
-
The rush usually works. I've done it before at Christmas time. Like I just placed a order two weeks ago (pretty small, no rush order). I ordered it Sunday night, it was processed Monday and shipped on Tuesday. Rush should allow you to get it shipped by Monday.
-
Well I got it and put it in. It was pretty straightforward. Sims with the latest add-on packs loads the main menu in less than 60 seconds, and the neighborhood loads also in less than 60 seconds (VERY fast), and the FPS over that neighborhood was very smooth.
Also tried it out in Aces High briefly. Sitting in the tower at a field with 6+ fires raging, I noticed higher FPS than I normally get. Will have to wait for an actual sortie to see for sure.
Slight problem, though:
I started up first time and noticed BIOS listed it as 2.13GHz, not to be confused with the name the chip has associated with it, which has the suffix "@ 2.13GHz" built into it, but in the actual speed area it said 2.13GHz.
However, going into WinXP it lists it as 2.05. I double checked BIOS, it lists it as 2133MHz.
So I went back into XP and fired up CPU-Z.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/858_1178413897_cpuz.jpg)
Can anybody help me here? What's causing this to happen?
-
I have mine currently at stock settings. It appears your FSB is clocked slower than what it should be. You'll need to check your BIOS settings to see whats up and what the settings are.
Here is my CPU-Z
(http://www.derstuhl.com/images/misc/RyansNewPC.jpg)
-
Also you'll want to download the Dual Core Patch for Windows (sorry don't the link). It helps running both cores in games and apps. It does not come with the standard Windows updates. I remember when I installed Windows the first time. Installing SP2 in about 5 minutes made me giggle.
-
I think there's a line I can put in boot.ini to tell windows I've got 2 cores. Have to look it up.
Anyways, hrm... strange, my bus SHOULD (ideally) have defaulted to 1066MHz.
I'll see what my BIOS lets me tweak.
-
E6400's multiplier changes from 6 to 8 so that affects FSB speeds as well.
-
If the multiplier changed, we'd be seeing a much larger FSB change, I think.
I did some checking, was writing down what my BIOS had listed (not too much available on this mobo -- not really meant for OCing so the options are limited).
I had earlier enabled "Spread Spectrum" thinking the description of it in the manual was worth trying. Couldn't hurt, right? On a hunch I set it back to disabled (default) and viola! The problem is gone!
Let that be a tip to those in the future!
-
Interesting Krusty, I was going to ask you to check if Speedstep was enabled which lowers the CPU clock speed to whatever is computer needs to be the most efficient, but this didn't make sense because the increments of lowering the CPU clock on Speedstep are even numbers and usually larger increments than what you saw on your CPU-Z.