| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2006/8/7-11 [Computer/HW/CPU] UID:43933 Activity:nil |
8/7 Microcenter in Santa Clara has E6600 processors, OEM for $379. I just
got one. If they still have some, you can request a "one day hold".
-dgies
\_ I'm still wondering what use everyone has for a CPU like this that
a CPU at half the cost won't do. I understand this is the bang for
the buck price point. What's all that bang for anyway?
\_ Games, multitasking a bit too much, and replacing an old box.
\_ Well, what looks nice is that it's the cheapest chip of the
next generation that just came out. So you get that "next-gen"
boost, but are still coming in on the bottom rung (which is
the best price/perf at that level)
\_ No it isn't, there is the E6300 etc.
\_ Right, but those are 2M cache, IIRC
\_ And again I ask, so? What do you need 4M cache for?
What is all this bang going to bang on, so to speak?
\_ I'm not the OP, but... why do you ever buy a new
computer? And when you do, don't you ever buy a
middle-to-new spec'ed one so that it'll last that
little bit longer?
\_ Then you should have said "cheapest chip of the next
Intel generation with 4MB cache".
\_ pls report on the CPU temp and cooler you're using. I'm reading
on http://hardforum.com about three E6300's running > 60 degrees C at load.
\_ Haven't assembled yet, but my cooler is rated for <0.25C/W so
given 65W TDP and 30C case, I'd expect the mid 40's. With bad
case cooling and a less efficient cooler, I could imagine 60C.
But keep in mind the Athlon X2s are rated at what, 89W?
\_ you haven't heard the big argument about TDP for Intel and
AMD having two different meanings?
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=273
anyway, pls do report. i'm really curious about whether
anyway, pls do report. i'm concerned about whether
all the reviewers got super-clean CPUs, while the rabble
are getting crap. thanks.
\_ Better than my old-process Athlon XP which runs @ 82C
\_ Better than my old-process Athlon XP 2100+ which runs @ 82C
\_ AMD 4400+, ~20C idle, ~32C under full load.
\_ I have a little trouble believing the accuracy of that
measurement. At idle, it should be no cooler than the
interior of your case, and 20C is pretty low for a case.
What case fans do you have and what is the ambient temp?
\_ Case: ExtremEngine 3T. Temps are as measured by the
motherboard and cpu sensors. I don't care enough to
stick a contact thermometer in the case to get more
accurate readings. Ambient is about 20C, often
cooler.
\_ I guess with that case I can believe your case temp
is that low. -pp
\_ i'm gonna guess he's water cooling!
\_ My 3.6GHz P4 is only -40C!*
(* When cooled with liquid nitrogen)
\_ My penis is 2 inches flaccid and 5 inches erect. |
| 5/24 |
|
| blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=273 AMD's reasoning is that AMD's TDP (Thermal Design Power) rating is based on maximum power draw while Intel's power rating is based more on typical power consumption and therefore exaggerated. Furthermore, AMD argues that we must look at the whole picture by measuring the power consumed on the entire computer. In fact at last month's press conference at AMD's headquarters, everyone was given a power meter to take home to measure power at the wall. measured power consumption of identical systems with the exception of AMD or Intel motherboards and CPUs. Intel rates their new C2D Extreme x6800 processor at 75 watt TDP while AMD rates their new Athlon 64 FX-62 Extreme processor at 125 watt TDP which has a theoretical difference of 50 watts. But looking at the highlighted figures, AMD's overall power consumption was actually 66 watts higher than Intel! This (based on TomsHardware numbers) would seem to indicate that not only is Intel NOT over exaggerating their power efficiency numbers, but they're actually being more conservative than AMD I threw in an overclocked Intel X6800 at a blazing 346 GHz for good measure and even that uses 51 watts less power than the AMD FX-62. every single benchmark while costing more than three times less. Note that these performance numbers are being echoed by every other hardware enthusiast site on the web. If a 24 GHz Core2 can do that much damage, it's hard to imagine what a 346 or even 4 GHz Core2 can do. The Core2 processors are already showing some really nice overclocking properties while AMD's FX line doesn't seem to have much room to clock. cut prices since Intel has already announced massive price cuts on their legacy Netburst CPUs. Now with the power argument out the window, it would take a miracle to AMD back in the race. |
| hardforum.com register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |