difference between extreme editions and normal...

[ben10218]

So they have an unlocked mulitplyer, does that make them overclock higher since you can mess with the multiplyer instead of the fsb? Does it mean you can get higher performance without upping the voltage?

Not really sure what the advantage of spending 700+ more dollars on it, compared to the regular version.

 

[jaguarskx]

Yes, and yes.

So that you can show off your ePenis when you tell your friends that you can afford to buy a $700+ CPU.

 

[endyen]

So they have an unlocked mulitplyer, does that make them overclock higher since you can mess with the multiplyer instead of the fsb? Does it mean you can get higher performance without upping the voltage?

Not really sure what the advantage of spending 700+ more dollars on it, compared to the regular version.

You get more performance gain from upping the fsb than increasing the multiplier. That said, a combination of the two will usually yield slightly better performance. Not worth $700 all the same.

What you are paying for is the premium silicon. It will oc higher, crash less, and gnerally survive longer.
It's sort of like getting tomorrow's top of the line chip today. Still not worth it in my books, but then most of my builds cost less than one EE chip.

 

[JuiceJones]

Intel's cash-in on people who have fat wallets and like to swell their ePeens.

I guess the extreme overclockers have use for them as well, but they may or may not fit into the above category.

 

[LukeBird]

You guys are generally right, but I have to work machines that have QX6850's with some pretty extreme cooling, that aren't OCed.
I ordered them, because I needed the fastest quad to make rendering in CS3 as fast as possible, and OCing a Q6600 is not an option I wanted to take. So there are other reasons to have an EE instead of bragging rights!

 

[night_wolf_in]

not really,why would anyone not overclock that q6600. u spend less money in getting after market cooler than getting n Xtream processor.

 

[LukeBird]

not really,why would anyone not overclock that q6600. u spend less money in getting after market cooler than getting n Xtream processor.

If that was in response to my post, then you have completely missed my point.
As a work machine, it is completely impractical to OC, because I can't afford to have any stability issues!

 

[night_wolf_in]

If that was in response to my post, then you have completely missed my point.
As a work machine, it is completely impractical to OC, because I can't afford to have any stability issues!

true stability is important. give it prime95 for 24hrs. n u sure wont get any issues using CS3.

 

[LukeBird]

true stability is important. give it prime95 for 24hrs. n u sure wont get any issues using CS3.

Indeed it is, but I can't be OCing something I don't own, hence buying the fastest stock quad that existed (the QX9650 was out about 6 weeks or so after they were built, but I may buy another in which case I'll have a QX9650 as well! ). I can't imagine anyone OCing a work computer, so that's why it's stock and also why I didn't even for a second consider an OCed chip.
You see now?

 

[zenmaster]

Indeed it is, but I can't be OCing something I don't own, hence buying the fastest stock quad that existed (the QX9650 was out about 6 weeks or so after they were built, but I may buy another in which case I'll have a QX9650 as well! ). I can't imagine anyone OCing a work computer, so that's why it's stock and also why I didn't even for a second consider an OCed chip.
You see now?

I still don't get it.
A Dual Processor Workstation Would get you more power, More Stability, and likely still cost less.

 

[LukeBird]

I still don't get it.
A Dual Processor Workstation Would get you more power, More Stability, and likely still cost less.

I doubt the price would be less (and i don't have experience of dual CPU stuff, so spec would have been a bit of a gamble) but yes it would have offered more power.
The machine was £2500 ($5000) but we would claim the 17.5% tax back. We needed machines built quickly that were to be used for desktop apps. Beyond that, what is there to not understand?
Also, I needed them to run some other high-end apps (FS X for instance).

 

[night_wolf_in]

I doubt the price would be less (and i don't have experience of dual CPU stuff, so spec would have been a bit of a gamble) but yes it would have offered more power.
The machine was £2500 ($5000) but we would claim the 17.5% tax back. We needed machines built quickly that were to be used for desktop apps. Beyond that, what is there to not understand?
Also, I needed them to run some other high-end apps (FS X for instance).

yeah, i c ur point bout overclocking. but i agree with the previous person about workstation with dual processors. a xeon processor could do.

n ive being browsing to get one for my supervisor's project (some heavy simulation work). anywho, i found that u can get a good workstation for 4000USD, talking about dual quad processor, 8 or more buffered ram. n with extra 1000USD. u could enjoy more.

edit. im saying what u could do, or have done. but again, since the company paying for the systems. n they dont have the brains to figure that out. what the hell, let them spend their money.

 

[LukeBird]

yeah, i c ur point bout overclocking. but i agree with the previous person about workstation with dual processors. a xeon processor could do.

n ive being browsing to get one for my supervisor's project (some heavy simulation work). anywho, i found that u can get a good workstation for 4000USD, talking about dual quad processor, 8 or more buffered ram. n with extra 1000USD. u could enjoy more.

edit. im saying what u could do, or have done. but again, since the company paying for the systems. n they dont have the brains to figure that out. what the hell, let them spend their money.

Yeah, like I said, with hindsight a Xeon system would have been better, but I have practically no experience of them, so a desktop was the easier route. They're not a bad spec and tehy get the job done! But as you said, not my money! To me, the extra oomph of the CPU over my system is just not worth it for a home user. The responsiveness of my drives in RAID is phenomenal, and it really kicks my work system in that respect. But in comparison, when rendering a video file in Premiere Pro (say a 10Gb+ uncompressed AVI) it absolutely demolishes all!