Actually, you're the one being obtuse here. Here is what you said:
Quote:
You're comparing apples to oranges here. If you applied the same cooling system to an E6300 the the E6300 would be able to outperform the P4EE.
How the f*ck does that imply any sort of overclocking whatsoever?
Quote:
Original post by tstrimp
Quote:
Original post by agi_shi
Adding liquid nitrogen to any processor won't help in performance. See, as long as it runs at a reasonable temp, then performance won't really differ. Only time it WILL differ is when you're running at above normal temps. and the CPU is throttling down to not melt.
There you go again. Do you understand the concept of overclocking? Do you understand the need for increased cooling while overclocking? Do you understand how much more you could overclock a processor if it's being cooled by something ridiculous like liquid nitrogen? If you don't understand any of the previous questions then please excuse yourself from this thread as you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
Yeah, I do. I see you do, too. What you DON'T understand, though, is the fact that I'm only quoting EXACTLY what you said.
In fact, this machine I'm running right now I built and overclocked myself. X2 3800+ (lowest of the line) is running at X2 5600+ speed (2.8GHz vs. 2.0GHz). Stable as hell, never busts 53C.
Quote:
Quote:
Besides, I don't really think we need benchmarks. I'm 120% sure practically any 8000MHz processor will be faster than most stock C2Ds.
Of course you need benchmarks! If for nothing else to show that the computer doesn't crash after running for 5 minutes! Massive overclocking tends to make things unstable and the fact that they didn't show any tests would seem to indicate that they couldn't keep the computer running long enough to run any.
Sure, it's probably unstable there. My X2 3800+ was unstable at 2.9GHz. But it's not - if you digged you'd come to the thread with the guy explaining stuff. The reason they didn't do any benchmarks is because they ran out of LN2.
Quote:
Quote:
Original post by Ezbez
Quote:
Original post by Ravuya
Most games now are single-threaded anyway, so you will see zip improvement from adding an extra CPU.
Really? I've never used a dual core computer extensively (and certainly not benchmarked it), but that's not the impression I had gotten from articles. My computer is doing a lot of other tasks while I'm playing a game (386 threads right now). Surely having that task load partially on another processor could benefit a game's performance, even just marginally?
This is true to some extent but background processes usually aren't enough to hinder game performance on a single cpu, unless you're running something stupid like Norton. The new dual-core cpus run games faster because the architecture is better, not necessarily because it has two cores. What you could do with a dual-core though is encode mp3s or something while playing F.E.A.R without a noticeable performance difference.
Don't forget, some games ARE multi-threaded. Crysis, for example, will dynamically branch threads as much as it feels your processor can handle. Technically I'll be able to run Crysis at all high/max once I get an X1950XT. X1950XT is just about as fast as a 8800GTS, except it's got more ram, faster ram, and is only ~210$ (cheaper than even the 320MB 8800GTS).
Maybe you're the one who needs to excuse yourself? [grin]
j/k
