Last message on previous page:

I win in every debate I get into...but first I make sure I can win.

As for my sig, I got invited to a club just yesterday. On the spur of the moment I decided to join...not sure if that was such a great idea...

I don't see why not.

X11 multiplier sounds good.

Bad idea.

Personally... I think the E2160 (with a 9x) is plenty and can save you a bit of money.

333*9 = 3.0GHz anyways.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipse [...] =3112&p=14

Yes, over indeed.

cnumartyr, IPC, is that ignorance per capita?

Short answer? Yes.

The E2180 is $1 more....!!??

Evil will tell you E2180.. I've heard stories of the E2160 still OCing better than some E2180s... I don't know why, it's all the same chip.

Either way it will get 3.0 Ghz easily.

do the E2160 instead. The E2180 sucks at OCing....taking it from experience

The E2180 has difficulties getting past 3.2Ghz for some reason. You have to raise the VID to 1.45v to get to 3.4GHz.

Imagine you have a BMW M5 that can seat 4 adults and your neighbour has a Boxster that can seat ahhh 2 adults (driver included in all examples).

The challenge is to get your each of your 12 guests to a restaurant 10 miles.

Your first trip you take-off doing 150 mph, your neighbour hits 200 mph. He gets there 2 minutes before you - but only delivers I guest (this is analogous to faster clock speed, the 2.0Ghz and 3.2Ghz we throw around). So he can complete a cycle faster than you - but he's only delivering one passeneger. So you then drop off your 3 passengers and are now 2 people ahead of him - even though he's 1/2 way home now - you can do much more work than he can.

Overclocking - you get home and you decide "FCUK IT" I was a maffia boss and I know how to use a car to it's fullest potential, so you put on tires with better grip and better exhaust to get more horse power - and also stick 2 people in your trunk and take off at 165 mph.

Boxster guy can only stick a 2 year old in his trunk - that his overclock done for the day.

The Boxster is AMD the BMW M5 is your Intel.

...I'd rather use a bus.

I'd take the boxter, and call a limo for the others.
Guess that's why I run multiple pcs.

I think its going to be interesting when intel releases chips with memory controller onboard and thier overclocking is diminished, let alone the max clocks.

It's a common problem.
And would that be in 32 or 64 bit mode?
Do you mean effective IPC? Would that be with or without software support?
Here's a hint, ipc was initially used to compare risc and cisc somputers.
It was stolen by the AMD fanboys to explain why the athlons could outperform the P4s, even though the athlons were slower. Since both architectures could retire a max of three instructions in a clock cycle, it was not quite true.
Since it realy is a hardware comparison, it seems silly to use it in today's environment, when coding is s major player in architectural ipc.

I could overclock my 4400 to 2.9Ghz without voltage raise on my asrock mobo.

At 3.0Ghz it would run stable, but performance dimished compared to 2.9Ghz, which is strange, maybe the chipset is the one to blame

Sarcasm doesn't come across well on the internet, I apologize.

Apologize? For me insulting you? (well, not so much you as the use of ipc)
I have a bit of a bee in my bonnet about that term, since it has become synonimus with "work per cycle", when most of the "work" is done through software enhancements.
I'm the one who should apologize.

The sarcasm was the use of the term IPC to refer to everything that has anything to do with clock for clock advantage of any CPU versus another CPU. I was being sarcastic using it as a reference to the Core 2 being faster clock for clock than the K8 and perhaps even more sarcastic in using a term which the AMD fans have so popularized.

Edit: I think IPC was BM's favorite term. Montreal will have much much more IPC.