That northbridge cooler is bigger than the cooler for my CPU ! And who the hell is going to use 10 SATA connectors?max wrote:
Overkill much?
Last edited by max (2008-10-02 13:44:08)
Last edited by Defiance (2008-10-02 20:36:12)
Last edited by GC_PaNzerFIN (2008-10-04 00:12:15)
I guess I made the right choice in getting a Q9450 thenGC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
Nehalem... not worth it for gamer. It only gives 5% increase in performance (GAMES) at most and even looses in some compared to Q9xxx at same frequenzy.
Updating to Nehalem would cost me 700€ more compared to Q9xxx because:
I would need a new mobo, CPU, cooler and expensive DDR3 ram. + gfx card
Q9550 + HD 4870 X2 would get me equal performance at half price. I might get another headset, mousepad and mouse as well. (could use old ones for my EEE PC).
That is possible because I already have beefy PSU and Asus P5E X38 @ Formula X48 mobo.
_board_08.jpg)
_board_09.jpg)
_board_10.jpg)
_board_11.jpg)
_board_12.jpg)
_board_13.jpg)
Nothing is really worth it when it just comes out. But this is all for the "next generation", so to say. Soon LGA-775 (or whatever it's called) is going to go the way of AGP.GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
Nehalem... not worth it for gamer. It only gives 5% increase in performance (GAMES) at most and even looses in some compared to Q9xxx at same frequenzy.
Updating to Nehalem would cost me 700€ more compared to Q9xxx because:
I would need a new mobo, CPU, cooler and expensive DDR3 ram. + gfx card
Q9550 + HD 4870 X2 would get me equal performance at half price. I might get another headset, mousepad and mouse as well. (could use old ones for my EEE PC).
That is possible because I already have beefy PSU and Asus P5E X38 @ Formula X48 mobo.
LOL
Ye I don't understand that part. That voltage is really low.MECtallica wrote:
LOL
I was gonna say DO WANT but I saw the bottom PCIe slots (ROFL) and the dimm voltage
.Sup wrote:
Ye I don't understand that part. That voltage is really low.MECtallica wrote:
LOL
I was gonna say DO WANT but I saw the bottom PCIe slots (ROFL) and the dimm voltage
1.65 sounds low to me too :Swiki wrote:
DDR3 memory promises a power consumption reduction of 30% compared to current commercial DDR2 modules due to DDR3's 1.5 V supply voltage, compared to DDR2's 1.8 V or DDR's 2.5 V. The 1.5 V supply voltage works well with the 90 nanometer fabrication technology used for most DDR3 chips. Some manufacturers further propose using "dual-gate" transistors to reduce leakage of current.[1]
According to JEDEC[2] the maximum recommended voltage is 1.575 volts and should be considered the absolute maximum when memory stability is the foremost consideration, such as in servers or other mission critical devices. In addition, JEDEC states that memory modules must withstand up to 1.975 volts before incurring permanent damage, although they are not required to function correctly at that level.
Is that sarcasm?DeathUnlimited wrote:
.Sup wrote:
Ye I don't understand that part. That voltage is really low.MECtallica wrote:
LOL
I was gonna say DO WANT but I saw the bottom PCIe slots (ROFL) and the dimm voltage1.65 sounds low to me too :Swiki wrote:
DDR3 memory promises a power consumption reduction of 30% compared to current commercial DDR2 modules due to DDR3's 1.5 V supply voltage, compared to DDR2's 1.8 V or DDR's 2.5 V. The 1.5 V supply voltage works well with the 90 nanometer fabrication technology used for most DDR3 chips. Some manufacturers further propose using "dual-gate" transistors to reduce leakage of current.[1]
According to JEDEC[2] the maximum recommended voltage is 1.575 volts and should be considered the absolute maximum when memory stability is the foremost consideration, such as in servers or other mission critical devices. In addition, JEDEC states that memory modules must withstand up to 1.975 volts before incurring permanent damage, although they are not required to function correctly at that level.
Nah, taken that DDR2 is JEDEC specced to run at 1.8-1.9 max and withstand 2.3, it is stupid that 1.5-1.575 specced DDR3 withstanding 1.975 should only be used at max 1.65....Sup wrote:
Is that sarcasm?DeathUnlimited wrote:
.Sup wrote:
Ye I don't understand that part. That voltage is really low.1.65 sounds low to me too :Swiki wrote:
DDR3 memory promises a power consumption reduction of 30% compared to current commercial DDR2 modules due to DDR3's 1.5 V supply voltage, compared to DDR2's 1.8 V or DDR's 2.5 V. The 1.5 V supply voltage works well with the 90 nanometer fabrication technology used for most DDR3 chips. Some manufacturers further propose using "dual-gate" transistors to reduce leakage of current.[1]
According to JEDEC[2] the maximum recommended voltage is 1.575 volts and should be considered the absolute maximum when memory stability is the foremost consideration, such as in servers or other mission critical devices. In addition, JEDEC states that memory modules must withstand up to 1.975 volts before incurring permanent damage, although they are not required to function correctly at that level.
AgreedGC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
I have hard time recommending the Core i7 system to anyone but the craziest number crunchers.
Last edited by DeathUnlimited (2008-10-05 07:56:18)
Max will get i7.DeathUnlimited wrote:
AgreedGC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
I have hard time recommending the Core i7 system to anyone but the craziest number crunchers.
Max the folder is one of the few who will love it.Freezer7Pro wrote:
Max will get i7.DeathUnlimited wrote:
AgreedGC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
I have hard time recommending the Core i7 system to anyone but the craziest number crunchers.
_board_08.jpg){kind=link}
_board_13.jpg){kind=link}