Everything looks good. Good balance of components, no bottleneck as far as I can see. Although you might consider ditching the Raptor for a newer Q9450 cpu. Remember, faster hdd just decrease initial loading time, not improve in game fps, a faster cpu, on the other hand, will. It's solid either way.
that's a good point, but what kind of performance increase would i notice from a Overclocked Q6600 to around 3.4-3.6 to the Q9450?
At stock, Q9450 get 3951 on 3dmark06 cpu bench, Q6600 get 3528 and Q6700 get 3846. Not sure how overclock will affect it, but should be in proportion. Q9450 runs on 8x , but produces less heat, Q6600 runs on 9x, but generates more heat. Overclocking limit favors q9450 when used on x38/48 chipset, where motherboard fsb is not a limiting factor, and favors Q6600 on slower chipsets. Not sure if 780i is overclockable enough to be a bottleneck.
I was looking at the q9450 and it really looks like a good CPU compared to the q6600. Only 379$ from newegg to bad they are sold out, maybe ill look around.
so which do you think would be better for gaming, even though quad cores arent the best for that atm. a 3.6ghz q6600 or a 3.0-3.2ghz q9450? The 9450 has 4MB more cache 45nm and is 1333fsb..
so which do you think would be better for gaming, even though quad cores arent the best for that atm. a 3.6ghz q6600 or a 3.0-3.2ghz q9450? The 9450 has 4MB more cache 45nm and is 1333fsb..
Not enough gaming benchmarks out there to tell. But I believe you can probably do more than 3.2 on 780i, which I heard was a decent oc board, unlike 750i. It's no x38/48, but should carry you above 3.2ghz. With the q9450, cpu heat is a very small factor.
Q9450 if you got the money.but i mean higher then 400 should be ok.as i got a Q6600 running on 8x450 now.and proved stable so imagine same for the Q9450 with even lower voltage and heat.
Q9450 if you got the money.but i mean higher then 400 should be ok.as i got a Q6600 running on 8x450 now.and proved stable so imagine same for the Q9450 with even lower voltage and heat.
hmm thanks for the input guys, i think ill look into the Q9450 for sure, even though it might be a little less ghz the more cache and 45nm will pay off im sure. Anything else you see that might be a problem, I wasnt really sure about that memory but it looked good it's 5-5-5-15 1.8-1.9v, i figure i could get it to 4-4-4-12 with increased voltage. Do you agree?
Message edited by kwake on 03-28-2008 at 04:24:45 AM
erm not so sure!depend on what speed you run on.its weird my ram can run on 950 with 5-5-5-15@2.1V.but when i increase to 2.2v the system will freeze even with the same timing and speed.so really depend on your memory.some dont like too much voltage and temperature!just to let you know that.
timing is not noticable in real world i admit.but if you get a chance why would you not select lower latency anyway?But 5-5-5-15 isnt bad at all if you can run it at 900mhz+
timing is not noticable in real world i admit.but if you get a chance why would you not select lower latency anyway?But 5-5-5-15 isnt bad at all if you can run it at 900mhz+
Of course, get it as high as you can, but there's no point wasting too much effort on something like that. Manufacturers don't list oc abilities in specs, reading consumer reviews should give you a better idea which ones are best for oc/tightening timing. Newegg is a good place to start.
