- Aug 25, 2006
- 340
- 0
- 18,780
With the advent of Vista on the horizon, we have yet another annoying onslaught by microsoft to drain us of more money and provide us with more frustration. As you can see, I'm not happy with Windows. I've had enough of this OS. I've been a windows user since 95 (I used to use os/2 warp 2, 3, & 4 back in the day) and well, I think its time to give up the ghost.
I'm not here to debate which OS is better (linux, OSX/tiger, Windows, etc). I am planning on switching to Linux Ubuntu or Gentoo. So here's where the questions start to flow.....
If I build a high end system, is it worth purchasing an x6800 over an e6600? In context, I could either spend about 550 on overclocking coolers (the peltier heat sinks that swiftec sells) for the e6600 or run a stock x6800 for a while and OC it later.
On top of that, If I am already spending 1000 on a cpu (theoretically), should I just buy a qx6700 and slightly OC it to 6800 speeds (since that theoretically won't cause a heat increase)?
Now here's a situation most people don't discuss and this is why I am asking about high end dual core vs high end quad core.
If you have ever read Tom's comparison of CPUs in multitasking enviornments, the comparison is always in the context of 2 programs. Now thats fine and dandy for most people, but for arguments sake, i'm ADHD. I would rather say, run a game (high end like quake 4, doom 3, half life 2), surf the web, burn a cd, and compress files at the same time. (this is possible using xgl on linux for the visual placement of all the programs.)
Now you're saying, you're insane/stupid and you won't be doing this. Well, most of the time, I have 5 or 6 different programs open at once. After a while, i get slow down, so I need something faster.
Well, with linux as many of you guys know, you can actually set how many threads certain applications can use. On top of that, running many programs at once, all the cores can be used at the same time.
So... for "MEGATASKING", is the jump to quadcore worth it or just spend the same amount on a slower CPU and cooling parts and overclock the *&%$ out of it?
I'm not here to debate which OS is better (linux, OSX/tiger, Windows, etc). I am planning on switching to Linux Ubuntu or Gentoo. So here's where the questions start to flow.....
If I build a high end system, is it worth purchasing an x6800 over an e6600? In context, I could either spend about 550 on overclocking coolers (the peltier heat sinks that swiftec sells) for the e6600 or run a stock x6800 for a while and OC it later.
On top of that, If I am already spending 1000 on a cpu (theoretically), should I just buy a qx6700 and slightly OC it to 6800 speeds (since that theoretically won't cause a heat increase)?
Now here's a situation most people don't discuss and this is why I am asking about high end dual core vs high end quad core.
If you have ever read Tom's comparison of CPUs in multitasking enviornments, the comparison is always in the context of 2 programs. Now thats fine and dandy for most people, but for arguments sake, i'm ADHD. I would rather say, run a game (high end like quake 4, doom 3, half life 2), surf the web, burn a cd, and compress files at the same time. (this is possible using xgl on linux for the visual placement of all the programs.)
Now you're saying, you're insane/stupid and you won't be doing this. Well, most of the time, I have 5 or 6 different programs open at once. After a while, i get slow down, so I need something faster.
Well, with linux as many of you guys know, you can actually set how many threads certain applications can use. On top of that, running many programs at once, all the cores can be used at the same time.
So... for "MEGATASKING", is the jump to quadcore worth it or just spend the same amount on a slower CPU and cooling parts and overclock the *&%$ out of it?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram