Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Newb with Question

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Computer
  • Processors
  • Intel
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 17, 2007 11:28:47 AM

Hey there everyone, I'm new to this forum and plan on a new computer purchase come the end of July. I realize the Q6600 is due for a price cut but the new Intel processors running on a 1333 mhz FSB sound appealing as well.
Can anyone tell me if a 1333 FSB is substantially faster than the current 1066 FSB? The primary use for the computer will be Digital Video Editing (consumer level) and if there is not much performance gained by going to a 1333 FSB then I would rather take advantage of the savings on the current processor offerings from Intel running on the 1066 FSB.

Thanks

More about : newb question

a c 159 à CPUs
a b å Intel
June 17, 2007 12:20:20 PM

There is a performance difference, but in my opinion, it's not worth 2x the price of ddr3 memory. You can get wintec ddr2 5300 for around $62 plus shipping at newegg, and it may overclock to 800 speeds. Or you can play it safe and get the ddr2 6400 for about $18 more. But I would check with the manufacturer on recommended memory before ordering, especially with any p35 chipset board.
June 17, 2007 12:39:13 PM

As I remember HKEPC tested 1066 vs 1333 a while ago. The largest difference was about 4 -> 5% in FarCry. So no, there's not a huge performance boost to be had.
Related resources
June 17, 2007 5:20:25 PM

If you are doing (Digital Video Editing)as you said you want the Q6600.
June 18, 2007 1:24:51 AM

I was really zeroing in on the Q6600. I my current computer takes up to 4 hours to burn a movie to DVD, that includes importing digital video tape, minor editing and a few titles. My mighty Athlon XP 2000+ is being brought to it's knees!
Once I update my software, it will hopefully see all four cores. Is it reasonable to say my time could be cut to 1 1/2 hours? I would assume the video card plays a big roll in the configuration? I was thinking the 8800GTS 320mb due to budget constraints. In addition, ASUS P5N-E MB, 2gb PC5300 ram, 150gb Raptor for OS and encoding, 500 gb SATAII HDD for storage. Is onboard 8 channel audio better than a dedicated sound card? I know onboard audio hogg's more cpu cycles but will the quad processor make up for the performance hit? There would be some gaming on this machine as well as digital photo editing.
opinions welcome!
Thanks
June 18, 2007 2:31:54 PM

Quote:
I was really zeroing in on the Q6600. I my current computer takes up to 4 hours to burn a movie to DVD, that includes importing digital video tape, minor editing and a few titles. My mighty Athlon XP 2000+ is being brought to it's knees!
Once I update my software, it will hopefully see all four cores. Is it reasonable to say my time could be cut to 1 1/2 hours? I would assume the video card plays a big roll in the configuration? I was thinking the 8800GTS 320mb due to budget constraints. In addition, ASUS P5N-E MB, 2gb PC5300 ram, 150gb Raptor for OS and encoding, 500 gb SATAII HDD for storage. Is onboard 8 channel audio better than a dedicated sound card? I know onboard audio hogg's more cpu cycles but will the quad processor make up for the performance hit? There would be some gaming on this machine as well as digital photo editing.
opinions welcome!
Thanks


Ok the video card is a good pick. just one thing about that card

(cut and paste off new egg)
A minimum 400W system power supply (with 12V current rating of 26A)

So a good power supply is needed!!!!!

As for the audio the Q6600 will make up for it, as you said.


As for the Raptor if it was me I would get 2 sata hard drives and RAID 0 them and save a little $$$$$
!