Just had a question about memory support for the motherboard I am buying.
The motherboard specs say:
1. 4 x 1.8V DDR2 DIMM sockets supporting up to 16 GB of system memory
2. Dual channel memory architecture
3. Support for DDR2 1366+*/1066/800/667 MHz memory modules
The chips people are buying and installing though show Voltage specs of using: 2.0V - 2.1V
such as these popular kits:
Yes it is ok, the mobo will handle it no problem. The 1.8V that is quoted is the JEDEC standard and that's why it is called out. Although the 2.1V is harder on the RAM making them hotter and more prone to failure, even though they are spec'd for that voltage.
Unless you need the 1066 speed in order to OC the chip beyond 400 (1600) FSB, then I recommend DDR2 800 that runs at 1.8-1.9V. They won't be as prone to failure and there is very little real world difference between 800 and 1066 otherwise.
The only other thing that has been bugging me is the processor.
I thought that the E8500 was the way to go and was agreed in many of my discussions on the forums. But after further research and reading various benchmarks, I think I am better suited with the Quad Core.
At the minimum I think the Q6600 would be a better processor for me. Since the quad provides better multitasking and some software is optimized to make better use of it.. With this chip even though it is 2.4Ghz I can overclock it easy to 3 something and it would be equal to or greater than the duo core.. What do you think? And what would your recommendation be. Also checkout this article I read here... http://www.cpu3d.com/article/4210-3/dual-core-vs-quad-c...
I thought the same until I seen that benchmark...
They showed Crysis testing and the Quad was equal to or greater than every benchmark during their gaming tests...
Here was his final words...
I have merely scratched the surface on these comparisons but to me there is only one clear winner, the Quad core. Windows and games may not fully utilize quad cores yet, but just look how quickly dual core became mainstream and steadily grew. If i was building a new PC i would settle for nothing less than a Quad. It's like a juggler having four arms instead of two. He can handle more things at a time and it frees him up for more things; not the best example but you get the idea.
If you are thinking of going SLI or Crossfire you will need a powerful CPU and opting for a Dual core will severely bottleneck the cards, unless of course you are overclocking a serious amount, in which case you would most likely need watercooling.
yea crysis is a little bit diff. from the rest. it takes advantages of the extra core, so that is why the benchmark was higher.
generally, as of present time, there are only limited # of games optimized or semi-optimized for quad cores. majority of the games benefit more from higher frequency (hence why ppl would recommend a duo) personally, i'll take the quad for the multi-tasking abilities as well.
list i can think of atm that are quad optimized - Microsoft FSX, Crysis, Supreme Commander, Left 4 Dead, and Team Fortress 2 to a certain extent.
Ok then... I think it is settled... Quad for me.. Unless I can get a faster one for the money it looks like it will be the Q6600. I hear you can OC the hell out of those.
I checked corsair website and plugged in my motherboard and they had (3) chips they recommended .. the DDR 800 they had ran at 2.1 volts.. And that was what they recommended for the board. If you look at the qualified memory specs straight from Gigabyte ...I think their list kinda sucks. There are all these weird brands and few popular...
It's also made by Seasonic instead of Channel Well Technology. Nothing against CWT, we all forgive them for the Fuhjyyu caps they put into the Antecs a few years ago, but I would rather have the Seasonic.