-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Whats the craze about Intel's 6x0 Series?!?
- Thread starter Wwing49
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2004
- Location
- The Netherlands
Wwing49 said:
IDK but it are the power saving features and the extra cache that give 'em the edge over the 5x0 series right now, not the 64-bit stuff.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2005
- Location
- Nova Scotia, Canada
Plus the fact that the average 640 (3.2ghz) is overclocking to 4.0ghz+ on air...
- Joined
- May 25, 2003
- Location
- galesburg illinois
i got the 6xx series cpus ive bought for the extra cache. i turn all the eist and ce1 function crap off soon as i boot up.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2004
- Location
- MA, USA
Basically like mentioned the overclocking features on this cpu are amazing. I bought it for the extra cache, and found that moving from Nocona Xeons to this was pretty close in comparison. Now yes the Nocona's were snappier, but this cpu comes close. Personally this is the best cpu I have ever owned
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2004
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI
the extra cache speeds it up a bit during multitasking (just like 512k vs 1024k on the A64's), plus they modded N0 stepping (modded E0) overclocks like no P4 has ever done before w/ air & water cooling - nikhsub1 broke what i think is a new WR - 5ghz on f'in water cooling with his 660... amazing... simply amazing
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2004
- Location
- The Netherlands
It has 64 bit as an extension to existing 32 bit registers and stuff, it will be able to run 64 bit software,
Years from now when 64 bit is necessary and workably robust with all drivers there might be a reason for desktop boxes to sport 64bit. ATM it is a marketing ploy of AMD's and one that Intel installed to keep up with the "Jones's".
Basically useless for quite some time in a desktop system. Drivers are nowhere near stable and not at all robust thus considering over ~95% of all the X86 software out there is 32bit brings the conclusion that it is the proverbial "Sixth Finger".
R
Basically useless for quite some time in a desktop system. Drivers are nowhere near stable and not at all robust thus considering over ~95% of all the X86 software out there is 32bit brings the conclusion that it is the proverbial "Sixth Finger".
R
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2004
- Location
- England
I dont know the ins and outs, but that quote from intel means that it'll support more than the current 4gb of memory, althought not the full amount a true 64bit CPU could address... if it's anything like the Xeon's it will actually be 48bit. As for running 64bit software, it's pretty ambiguous. Anyone else know for sure?
~t0m
~t0m
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2004
- Location
- The Netherlands
Dexx said:
3.6 - 4Ghz
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2003
- Location
- Ottawa, Canada
Centurion said:I was wondering the same thing...Is this processor truely 64bit...Will I be able to run Windows XP 64-Bit edition on it...kinda confused...
I try to install 64bit windows and I feel it is much faster than the 32bit , but unfortunately, I cannot get 2 drivers for my hardware, so I have to got back to the old windows.
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2004
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI
the 630's have overclocked to 4ghz+ on air, and i know i saw one at 4.2 or 4.3 the other day w/ water IIRC
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2003
- Location
- Ottawa, Canada
hawtrawkr said:
hawtrawkr,
what are those functions ??? Is it better to turn them off if you don't use 64bit windows?
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2001
- Location
- Los Angeles
One is speed step... at idle, the cpu will turn it's multiplier down to 14... The other is voltage throttling, again, at idle the CPU will back voltage way down. So for example, if you had a 630 that you set vcore to 1.5V, if you have these functions enabled in bios, at idle the cpu would go to 14 x 200 and the vcore would come down to like 1.3 or 1.2V. It is wise to disable both these functions unless for some crazy reason you need them. This is not a 64bit or 32bit issue, meaning you should disable them no matter what OS you run.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2004
- Location
- Asheville NC
nikhsub1 said:
I don't understand why you'd be telling him to disable C1E and SpeedStep, they reduce heat by reducing voltage\multi at IDLE. Under load everything goes back to normal.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2004
- Location
- England
RangerXLT8 said:
But we all love our stable CPU's here - certainly changing the voltage on the fly isnt as good as keeping it the same, plus we all have decent cooling - speedstep will only hinder overclockability.
~t0m
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
hawtrawkr said:
Same.
Plus they seem to do about ~100+ better than the 5XX at the same speed.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2004
- Location
- Asheville NC
Regardless of cooling, with SpeedStep and C1E enabled the processor is going to run cooler; Intel wouldn't have put in all the time and money developing it if it did not work and caused instability; it does not hinder overclockability at all on MY 650, all it does is lower the multi\Vcore respectively and when you lower the two it's going to generate less heat..
My 650 is going to need less voltage at say 14*200=2.8ghz vs 17*200=3.4ghz so why not just use SpeedStep, it just reduces clockspeed when the CPU is at IDLE not doing anything, thus reducing heat. Why not use it if it's going to make your proc run cooler?
My 650 is going to need less voltage at say 14*200=2.8ghz vs 17*200=3.4ghz so why not just use SpeedStep, it just reduces clockspeed when the CPU is at IDLE not doing anything, thus reducing heat. Why not use it if it's going to make your proc run cooler?
