My New Computer Project!

[rayzoredge 2]

I'd consider it a waste not to overclock if one will be going with a water cooling system like Ash-Bash is. I'm not sure if the processor he's going with will have an unlocked multiplier, but most INTEL processors require you to mess around with the front side bus. Overclocking the FSB should increase performance for more than just the processor. But performance doesn't come from the processor alone (as you probably already know); having fast memory with great timing will help with performance too. Though i'll be upgrading to better memory (hopefully) soon, my current computer has DDR2 533mhz (its advertised CAS latency is 3). Before i adjusted the timings, it used to be at 5-5-5-18 (i.e. "auto"). When i set it to its advertised timings, 3-3-3-8, i noticed an increase in performance that you could visually see. Programs started up about a second faster than they used to. How fast memory is isn't really the issue, it's the timing that counts. I saw a DDR3 1333mhz memory with a timing of 7-7-7-24 outperform a DDR3 1600mhz at 9-9-9-36 (i think it was 36maybe 32).

 

While a program may not utilize all cores and probably doesn't utilize more than one, that doesn't mean only one core will be working. But i can tell you one thing, if you are one that compiles programs a lot, multiple cores are very useful. Me and a friend of mine wanted to see just how much of a performance gain a quad-core has compared to a dual-core running at the same speed. We both downloaded the latest Linux kernel (2.31.*.*) and timed how long it took to compile it on our systems. GCC is "required" to compile the Linux kernel, and GCC, i hear, can utilize up to 16 cores. Though my system is not as up-to-date as his and my processor was (is) an older model, AMD AM2 Windsor 6400+, 3.2ghz, his being an AMD AM3 Phenom II X4, 3.2ghz, it took me about an hour and 15 minutes to compile the Linux kernel. It took him about 40 minutes.

True... I forgot the fact that his hardware is going to be liquid-cooled. I'm so into the mindset that overclocking won't make that much of a noticeable difference nowadays, and with the factor of introducing more heat and killing the hardware that much faster, it just wasn't worth it.

 

Now, back in the day when you could hit that Turbo button to go from 33MHz to 66MHz, that was amazing...

 

I do remember from doing prior research back in the day that it basically was the combination of the speed and latency of the RAM that gave it the oomph we describe. But isn't RAM stability an issue as with overclocking a processor? You say a second or so of difference... to a tinkerer, that's a very big deal, but to the average user, it's not that big of a deal to invest the time and effort to gain that extra second. I'm not belittling the art of overclocking, but from an "average user" standpoint, a second or even a few seconds isn't that big of a deal. When we start talking double digits, then it's on (10, 20, even 30 seconds would be very noticeable).

 

I read somewhere that multi-core processing is evolving to that point where a load will be balanced amongst cores as opposed to just taxing one when it comes to software being the limiting factor, so you're right on that. The thing that's a concern right now is that there isn't a heck of a lot of software that actually utilizes multiple cores right now, which is changing now as we start seeing more dual and quad-core processors on the mainstream side. You are definitely 100% good to go with compiling kernels with a quad-core processor; however, this leaves a wide audience [that excludes programmers and advanced users] still to wonder if their processors are actually being utilized to its full potential or not for their programs, games, and everyday tasks. Like I said, I'm not saying that quad-cores or even dual-cores are useless, but maybe I'm under the misconception that you are limited to clock speeds and performance when software limits hardware utilization?

[Ash-Bash 0]

True... I forgot the fact that his hardware is going to be liquid-cooled. I'm so into the mindset that overclocking won't make that much of a noticeable difference nowadays, and with the factor of introducing more heat and killing the hardware that much faster, it just wasn't worth it.

Yeah, I thought water calling would look nice in the Case & Would also be great for over-clocking as it should NOT overheat O.o I just can't wait for all these parts to arrive :( :D

[inverse_bloom 0]

Nice comp specs, if i had anywhere near half that i reckon i'd be quite content. That comp would be great for 3d work, one particular 3d model i have made would quite probably benefit from that much ram (model is a stomper with full raytrace rendering, etc). Your comp would also be great for emulating certain game consoles (purchased games of course) perhaps on ps2 or the old dreamcast (the dreamcast emulator supposedly does an excellent job). Imagine how quickly you'll be flying through photoshop filters and video editing. You should try video compositing if you dont already.

Edited October 28, 2009 by inverse_bloom (see edit history)