Dual Core Power!!!

Core2 Duo E6400 @ 2.66GHz (1333Mhz FSB)
Intel 975XBX "BadAxe" mobo
2GB Crucial DDR2-667
EVGA "Superclock" (560Mhz) Nvidia 7900GT 512MB

If you did a doubletake at the above CPU numbers, yes, I'm
overclocking what is normally a 2.13GHz CPU. I haven't overclocked a
PC since the Celeron 300A machine that I built back in the 90's, but
with Intel supporting 1333MHz FSB on the BadAxe, and reports that
overclocking the Core2 Duo is pretty-much a slam-dunk, it just seemed
too easy, and too fun 8), to resist.

Seems to be working fine so far. "Stress-testing" was done playing
FEAR. After reading about people OC'ing these things to 4Ghz, I think
my mild 25% OC is very likely to continue to work fine. More bang for
the buck! 8)

In normal usage, it doesn't seem any different from my old Northwood
3.0, which was already plenty snappy for most tasks. One reason for
the upgrade was so that my kid can get the Northwood box (6600GT
video), as her P3-1Ghz box was getting kind of long in the tooth.
Plus, even though I don't game very often, it's fun to do occasionally
and my new machine can now handle pretty much anything out there at
high resolutions and high quality settings. The graphics in FEAR are
pretty darn impressive...

So, even though I didn't "need" to upgrade, it seemed like the right
time to do it. We use the hell out of our computers, so it's not a
bad place to spend some money...

chrisv wrote:
> Dual Core Power!!!
>
> Core2 Duo E6400 @ 2.66GHz (1333Mhz FSB)
> Intel 975XBX "BadAxe" mobo
> 2GB Crucial DDR2-667
> EVGA "Superclock" (560Mhz) Nvidia 7900GT 512MB
>
> If you did a doubletake at the above CPU numbers, yes, I'm
> overclocking what is normally a 2.13GHz CPU. I haven't overclocked a
> PC since the Celeron 300A machine that I built back in the 90's, but
> with Intel supporting 1333MHz FSB on the BadAxe, and reports that
> overclocking the Core2 Duo is pretty-much a slam-dunk, it just seemed
> too easy, and too fun 8), to resist.
>
> Seems to be working fine so far. "Stress-testing" was done playing
> FEAR. After reading about people OC'ing these things to 4Ghz, I think
> my mild 25% OC is very likely to continue to work fine. More bang for
> the buck! 8)
>
> In normal usage, it doesn't seem any different from my old Northwood
> 3.0, which was already plenty snappy for most tasks. One reason for
> the upgrade was so that my kid can get the Northwood box (6600GT
> video), as her P3-1Ghz box was getting kind of long in the tooth.
> Plus, even though I don't game very often, it's fun to do occasionally
> and my new machine can now handle pretty much anything out there at
> high resolutions and high quality settings. The graphics in FEAR are
> pretty darn impressive...
>
> So, even though I didn't "need" to upgrade, it seemed like the right
> time to do it. We use the hell out of our computers, so it's not a
> bad place to spend some money...

I thought you had an AMD system at one point, or was that just an
acknowledgement of the technology at the time? Also you fail to
mention what OS you are using? I would love someone to try give a hands
on report of how the 64 bit extensions work in a real world situation.
As I have heard various things in the media and how some features are
not yet implemented.

I am also surprised you went with a 7900 GT, doesn't that gpu have a
history of problems. I would watch that with an eagle eye as that could
be problematic. Also why not go with a nvidia chipset? Also did your
motherboard have any markings that indicate who manufactured it, such
as Foxconn, also what brand of caps does it use?

Rthoreau

Rthoreau wrote:

>chrisv wrote:
>> Dual Core Power!!!
>>
>> Core2 Duo E6400 @ 2.66GHz (1333Mhz FSB)
>> Intel 975XBX "BadAxe" mobo
>> 2GB Crucial DDR2-667
>> EVGA "Superclock" (560Mhz) Nvidia 7900GT 512MB
>
>I thought you had an AMD system at one point, or was that just an
>acknowledgement of the technology at the time?

I built an AMD64 machine for my brother, and came close to getting one
for myself a couple months ago. Then Conroe came along... 8)

>Also you fail to
>mention what OS you are using? I would love someone to try give a hands
>on report of how the 64 bit extensions work in a real world situation.
>As I have heard various things in the media and how some features are
>not yet implemented.

I'm going to Dual-boot XP and Mepis Linux, but so far only XP is on
the HD. I hadn't given much thought to going with a 64-bit OS...

>I am also surprised you went with a 7900 GT, doesn't that gpu have a
>history of problems. I would watch that with an eagle eye as that could
>be problematic.

From what I understand, the issue was with the Samsung memory that
many companies were using. To their credit, EVGA acknowledges the
problems and now offers what they call their "reload" cards, which
have different memory chips and should not have any problems.

http://www.evga.com/articles/317.asp

>Also why not go with a nvidia chipset?

I don't think there's any Nvidia-based mobos that support the Conroe
(yet). The Intel board is a good one, albeit pricey. (I got my money
back from them by buying a cheaper chip and overclocking it. 8)

>Also did your
>motherboard have any markings that indicate who manufactured it, such
>as Foxconn, also what brand of caps does it use?

I didn't examine it for markings, but I doubt it will say anything but
"Intel" on it... As for the caps, I'll look at them and report back,
if I don't forget.

chrisv wrote:
> Dual Core Power!!!
>
> Core2 Duo E6400 @ 2.66GHz (1333Mhz FSB)
> Intel 975XBX "BadAxe" mobo
> 2GB Crucial DDR2-667
> EVGA "Superclock" (560Mhz) Nvidia 7900GT 512MB

Is that with the 2MB or 4MB cache?

Yousuf Khan

On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 17:51:19 -0400, Yousuf Khan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>chrisv wrote:
>> Dual Core Power!!!
>>
>> Core2 Duo E6400 @ 2.66GHz (1333Mhz FSB)
>> Intel 975XBX "BadAxe" mobo
>> 2GB Crucial DDR2-667
>> EVGA "Superclock" (560Mhz) Nvidia 7900GT 512MB
>
>Is that with the 2MB or 4MB cache?

The e6300 and 6400 have 2x1 meg,
the e6600, 6700, and 6800 have the 2x2 meg cache.


Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.

This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity...

Remove XYZ to email me

On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 13:09:18 -0500, chrisv <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Rthoreau wrote:
>
<<snip>>
>>Also why not go with a nvidia chipset?
>
>I don't think there's any Nvidia-based mobos that support the Conroe
>(yet). The Intel board is a good one, albeit pricey. (I got my money
>back from them by buying a cheaper chip and overclocking it. 8)

Yes, Asus has a couple of Conroe-compatible nVidia mbrds, one an upgrade of
a nForce4-based board, the P5N32-SLI SE Deluxe... the other a 570-based
system. Apparently the 590-based board is err, imminent.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

Yousuf Khan wrote:

>chrisv wrote:
>> Dual Core Power!!!
>>
>> Core2 Duo E6400 @ 2.66GHz (1333Mhz FSB)
>> Intel 975XBX "BadAxe" mobo
>> 2GB Crucial DDR2-667
>> EVGA "Superclock" (560Mhz) Nvidia 7900GT 512MB
>
>Is that with the 2MB or 4MB cache?

As "The Kat" said, the E6400 has "only" 2MB L2 cache, although I
object to his description of it as "2 x 1 Meg" when AFAIK it's really
one shared cache.

For awhile I was thinking that the E6600, which runs at a nominal
2.4GHz and has 4MB L2, would be the one to get, but at the last minute
I changed my mind. The E6600 wasn't readily available, and the $360
price was a bit high. I read reports that showed that the benefit of
the larger cache was a few percent at best, and reports of the easy
over-clockability, especially of the "slower" variants. So I thought,
"what the heck, get the cheaper one and OC it PAST the 2.4GHz that I
was planning on getting." Cool!

Plus, the 8xFSB core multiplier gives a nice symmetry to things, with
the memory in my memory running dual channels at 333MHz DDR, perfectly
matching the FSB running at 333MHz QDR ("1333MHz" FSB), and the CPUs
running twice that at 2.66MHz. Geeky. 8)

Heck, for all I know, many of the "2.13GHz" E6400's run just fine at
much higher frequencies, but had a test failure in the L2 so that they
had to switch half of it off, and then for marketing reasons (not
wanting two products, 2M and 4M, at each frequency) they just sell
those as their "low end" chips. After all, with the huge L2, the odds
are 50-50 that any defect in the chip will be somewhere in the L2.

chrisv wrote:

>As for the caps, I'll look at them and report back, if I don't forget.

Too hard to see the cap's brand, after the board in installed. Sorry.

chrisv wrote:

> Dual Core Power!!!
>
> Core2 Duo E6400 @ 2.66GHz (1333Mhz FSB)
> Intel 975XBX "BadAxe" mobo
> 2GB Crucial DDR2-667
> EVGA "Superclock" (560Mhz) Nvidia 7900GT 512MB
>
> If you did a doubletake at the above CPU numbers, yes, I'm
> overclocking what is normally a 2.13GHz CPU.

<various snips>


how is it on output of heat?

also IIRC, that 7900GT is a current mid
to high-end video board, right?

meaning that it also puts out a lot
of heat, right?


> Seems to be working fine so far. "Stress-testing"
> was done playing FEAR.


how long have you been running this
new machine for? (to the closest week)



> Plus, even though I don't game very often,
> it's fun to do occasionally

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

agreed

i'm currently running Oblivion on
XP with a single Opty 248 2.2 GHz
(socket 940, single core) with
a 7600GT/256MB

runs pretty decent, and is suprising
(to me) in how stable it is (both XP
and Oblivion), and in how, when it
(Oblivion) does fold up, that i can
almost always restart without having
to reboot XP.


> and my new machine can now handle pretty much anything out there at
> high resolutions and high quality settings. The graphics in FEAR are
> pretty darn impressive...


the 3D graphics are the one thing
that consistently gets better.

glancing at the c.s.i.p.g.action n/g,
FEAR appears to be a shooter?

how does it's graphics compare to Oblivion?


>
> So, even though I didn't "need" to upgrade,
> it seemed like the right time to do it.


correct me if i'm wrong; IIRC each of Intel's past
major CPU transitions weren't without problems

nothing like being a guinea pig with
new technology (whether it's h/w or s/w)

all ears.

bill

willbill wrote:

>chrisv wrote:
>
>> Dual Core Power!!!
>>
>> Core2 Duo E6400 @ 2.66GHz (1333Mhz FSB)
>> Intel 975XBX "BadAxe" mobo
>> 2GB Crucial DDR2-667
>> EVGA "Superclock" (560Mhz) Nvidia 7900GT 512MB
>>
>> If you did a doubletake at the above CPU numbers, yes, I'm
>> overclocking what is normally a 2.13GHz CPU.
>
>how is it on output of heat?

The CPU seems to be running cool and quiet with the stock
heatsink/fan.

>also IIRC, that 7900GT is a current mid
>to high-end video board, right?
>
>meaning that it also puts out a lot
>of heat, right?

A respectable amount, I suppose, but not bad for "high end" card.
Nvidia's new 90nm GPU's are known to be pretty reasonable on the power
consumption.

On a related note, if you want a 7900GT but don't want to be able to
hear the cooling fan from the next room, plan on getting an
aftermarket cooler. I use a Zalman VF900-Cu, which is not only
virtually silent, but is a MUCH better cooler.

>> Seems to be working fine so far. "Stress-testing"
>> was done playing FEAR.
>
>how long have you been running this
>new machine for? (to the closest week)

1.5 weeks. 8)

>(snip)
>
>glancing at the c.s.i.p.g.action n/g,
>FEAR appears to be a shooter?

Suspense/shooter, I'd call it. I like it.

>how does it's graphics compare to Oblivion?

I've not tried Oblivion. As far as I know, it's the one game that
even a high-end card can't do well, unless you have two cards in SLI,
and I'm not gong there...

I should note that, even on my fairly respectable new rig, FEAR can
get a bit jerky during intense battles. Some of these new games are
VERY demanding.

>correct me if i'm wrong; IIRC each of Intel's past
>major CPU transitions weren't without problems
>
>nothing like being a guinea pig with
>new technology (whether it's h/w or s/w)
>
>all ears.

I think these last issues deserve their own thread. 8)