• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Whats the current Hot Dual-Core Intel to get?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

HeadRusch

Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2003
Both on the budget size (cheapest chip with greatest potential for overclock) versus high-end chip ($$$) with greatest potential for overclock.

This would be for building a gaming rig. yeah the A64's are nice but I've always had better luck with Intels....

???
:shrug:
 

xTrEmEoVrClOcKr

member
Joined
May 26, 2004
Location
San Diego, CA
I wouldn't go w/ a dual core system just yet. Around the bend, the CedarMills are coming out, Probably January 6th. They will run @ 65W @ stock and WILL overclock like beast, im talking 5ghz on stock voltage w/ aircooling. You can wait another 11 or 12 days right? Thats what im waiting for ;). Intels dual core is a joke ATM, the 8xx series runs way too hot (135w), just wait for the cedarmills or if you REALLY want dual core, wait for the Presslers (85w, dual core, 65nm), also can OC 4.5-5ghz on air, the 5ghz would only be achieved w/ added voltage, probably wouldn't be stable though.
 

CoreGamer

Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2005
Either wait for Pressler (Dec 27th) Or Cedar Mill, both are Overclocking Beasts and have proven to hit 4.5+ on STOCK AIR....definatly worth the wait
 

Sentential

Contributing Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2003
Location
Knoxville, TN
Most stores ive seen are starting to get them in around the 6th. Im waiting on Cedar Mill. Its dual core cousin is called Presler. Those are the ones to wait for.
 
OP
H

HeadRusch

Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2003
There were a couple of game patches released...for Call of Duty 2 and Quake4...that REALLY juice up the frames per second by enabling either Hyper Threading OR Dual-Core availability, hence thats what got me thinking.

I even saw a nice little bump in speed from just HyperThreading on my 3.6Northwood (3.0 o/ced). Presler eh? Hmmmm...
 

ZhouZhi

New Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2005
xTrEmEoVrClOcKr said:
They will run @ 65W @ stock


wait for the Presslers (85w, dual core, 65nm)


Where did you get that information? I haven't seen any solid information on this yet.

>

I take that back, the only info I know of for the Cedar Mill TDP is from tomshardware:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/10/07/a_sneak_peak_at_intel/page3.html

That article claims Cedar Mills TDP is 86W.

I think you are confusing Preslers TDP with Conroe's forecast TDP.
 
Last edited:

wingman99

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
HeadRusch said:
There were a couple of game patches released...for Call of Duty 2 and Quake4...that REALLY juice up the frames per second by enabling either Hyper Threading OR Dual-Core availability, hence thats what got me thinking.

I even saw a nice little bump in speed from just HyperThreading on my 3.6Northwood (3.0 o/ced). Presler eh? Hmmmm...

If you buy a new rig with the Pentium D 840 3.2 GHz you might get 20 fps more than what you have now at a resultion of 1280*1024 *32

But you will need to be able to overclock the Pentium D 840 to 3.6 otherwise you will probably break even


Site test LINKhttp://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/quake_4_dual-core_performance/page3.asp
 

wingman99

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
xTrEmEoVrClOcKr said:
But, the 840 is really expensive, hot, and ocs like ****. Id rather wait for another few days.
Sorry that was my point it came out wrong lol. Who wants $2000+ system for only the possibility of 10-20 fps improvement compared to the system they have.
 

ZhouZhi

New Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2005
Yes, stay far away from the 8xx series....

The 9xx will definately be coming in soon:

BX80553920 PENTIUM D 920 2.8GHZ SKT775 ATX FSB800 2X2MB CACHE

BX80553930 PENTIUM D 930 3.0GHZ SKT775 ATX FSB800 2X2MB CACHE

BX80553940 PENTIUM D 940 3.2GHZ SKT775 ATX FSB800 2X2MB CACHE

BX80553950 PENTIUM D 950 3.4GHZ SKT775 ATX FSB800 2X2MB CACHE


Just something I googled for real quick. A number of online vendors are already taking pre-orders.
 

3DFlyer

Banned
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Location
The Cockpit
Those Presslers are gonna be the way to go. I know the situation with Dual Core. Games are moving to dual core enhancements, and the flight sims I'm flying now already have, and have been for awhile now.

That Pressler will have no problem OC'ing. It will OC on air as high as an 8xx CPU will on LN2! Over at XS it's already been done.

Build you a good quality system, with a good 975x board, good RAM, and a good VC, and that thing will OC and rock! I'd go with at least 2GB of RAM. The games and simulators out now need it.
 

wingman99

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
3DFlyer said:
Those Presslers are gonna be the way to go. I know the situation with Dual Core. Games are moving to dual core enhancements, and the flight sims I'm flying now already have, and have been for awhile now.

That Pressler will have no problem OC'ing. It will OC on air as high as an 8xx CPU will on LN2! Over at XS it's already been done.

Build you a good quality system, with a good 975x board, good RAM, and a good VC, and that thing will OC and rock! I'd go with at least 2GB of RAM. The games and simulators out now need it.

If you want to save your money 1 gig of ram is fine

Toms hardware says 2 GB Of RAM Is Not Marketing Hype

When you actually read his test watch out for his comparison on 512-2 gig

Look for things like this

In Quake 4 at Ultra Quality the difference between the first run and the cached runs is smaller. When you play the game you don't get really get bothered by hard drive access when using 1 GB of system memory or more.

1 GB
Indeed, 1 GB of system memory will most likely be enough for the average user and for people.

It will allow you to play new games at their highest quality settings, given that you have an adequate processor and a powerful graphics solution.
You won't have to shut down non-critical applications when you want to play a game.
You can (accidentally) press the Windows button while in a game without dying from a stroke during the seconds it takes to read Windows back into system memory from the swap file.
If you go from 512 MB to 1 GB, you will notice the difference all the time. Starting up Photoshop while working with Word, an Internet browser, e-mail client and Acrobat Reader will go so much faster, and switching between the applications is a breeze.



If you sort through facts of what he is saying there is no real world gains from 1-2G running a single game

Now I'm running a quake 4 sever and f12002 sever and playing my usage is 575MB

Ive played and tested 15 newer games the one that uses the most ram is valve CS it will load a hole gig while you sit and wait at the beginning of the game forever and then while your playing it stops for map changing from ram not the hard drive at that point i was saying what the [email protected]#$#@ the engine in that game is a real peace of work.

My final thoughts I'm not looking forward to 2 gig loading from hard drive at game startup. 90% games don't load more than 500MB. Move data head of time while I'm playing like the sweet smooth unreal engine does.

link tomshardware
http://www6.tomshardware.com/2005/12/13/how_much_ram_do_you_really_need/index.html
 
Last edited:

3DFlyer

Banned
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Location
The Cockpit
If you're believing anything you read on Tom's, you are misinformed. This is another example of why I don't belive anything I read on that site. FEAR, Quake 4, CoD2, LOMAC (runs better up to 4GB of RAM), F4:AF, The New Fighter Ops (due out in March will require 2GB and really will need up to 4GB), BF2...all of those games have benefitted from 2GB or more of RAM, and users here have masured it. They've seen the increases in the benches, and the increases in FPS in actual gameplay. The game is not the only thing using system RAM.

Tom's talking about Marketing hype? Geeeeez! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. :rolleyes: That's all that site is about. Maybe they're trying to rationalize their marketing BS in their own minds by takiing the focus off the problem...themselves.
 

wingman99

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
3DFlyer said:
If you're believing anything you read on Tom's, you are misinformed. This is another example of why I don't belive anything I read on that site. FEAR, Quake 4, CoD2, LOMAC (runs better up to 4GB of RAM), F4:AF, The New Fighter Ops (due out in March will require 2GB and really will need up to 4GB), BF2...all of those games have benefitted from 2GB or more of RAM, and users here have masured it. They've seen the increases in the benches, and the increases in FPS in actual gameplay. The game is not the only thing using system RAM.

Tom's talking about Marketing hype? Geeeeez! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. :rolleyes: That's all that site is about. Maybe they're trying to rationalize their marketing BS in their own minds by takiing the focus off the problem...themselves.

All the reviews and this form has become strictly markting LOL

I don't believe it either i need screen shots, test links of people using using all of that 2 and 4 gigs on one game please show. Do you know how much your max games are using.

Talk and beliefs are not that reliable the facts that i can see are.

More than recommend ram for a game will make you feel good.

These test are with PF(Virtual Memory) disabled
I also played the games for a while to increase the catch as much as possible
graphics are at the max, also the results are total RAM usage.

F.E.A.R 980 MB

Quake 4 855 MB

Out of 2047 MB RAM

Maybe I'm incorrect i would love to see the 2-4 gig memory screen shot usage for one game.

I like to debunk things because i would like to see more people gaming and in this form with limited cash not giving up on having or upgrading to a sweet gaming PC that is equal in play.
 
Last edited: