new boot times P79xx-q9200

Hi,
Below are my boot times with the old P7805 and x9100 and then the P79xx and q9200.........

 

Looks pretty good. I am envious. Is that boot up with NO startup programs?

 

full normal bootup including having to log in.................

Didn't realize I had the x9100 since 8/2010, seems like yesterday...............

 

Ya, 7mo's is a long time. hehe

 

It seems like that for me lately..................

 

Tan, what are you using as your UI on your desktop? It looks real clean and sleek...kind of like my wife's MAC OS , anyways, HOOK A BROTHER UP!

 

Rainlender for the calender, Rocket dock for the dock, custom icons and theme. For just a touch of custom on the task/title bars windowblinds custom Aero themes....................

 

Those are pretty awesome. I like your desktop also man, looks very clean and modern.

 

Time to login is FAST on that system..................

 

Yah, really love my ssd Running windows with 25 processes at boot helps out a bit too.

 

Ah, 84 proccesses here.............

 

Yeah, my laptop loaded up is at 1:15 .

 

TANWare-

You may have already answered this on another thread I posted a week or two back, so sorry if this is repeated, but I've been looking ALL over the internet for the answer to a question I THINK you may have answered in this forum.. Regardless, just to make certain.. here's my question: I have a P-7908. I remember you saying in another thread that you had replaced your 7805 mb with a p-79xx mb (I think). If that's correct, then obviously you're currently running a q9200 on the P79xx board, and my question is.. even though you purchased a replacement mb only, my P7908 should be just as compatible with a quad core too right? I guess another quetion I'd like to know (but think is already obviously answered..) is if you're running the P-79 bios (I'd assume you are/would have to) on your comp. If so, that is EXCELLENT news for me . A QX9300 should be just as compatible as the Q9200 theoretically right? I ask because I'm in the final throws of making my decision about purchasing a QX9300 and will pretty much push the "Proceed with Checkout" button if I see a response from you thinking that yes, it should be compatible. Thank you so much for your help btw.. you're extremely knowledgeable about this FXs and there's not much info on the net regarding the P-79 series .

 

The bios here is the same as on the gateway site, .07 version. The MB should be compatible, I of course can't garrenty it but the prospects are very good.

The qx9300 is as compatible as the q9200. The issue may lie in the power brick. 120w may no longer be enough. In the other thread with a crashing P79 it looks like there isn't enough power to get to the USB. You probably want 150w or greater. The Targus 180w is a great choice if you have any issues.

Personally I would take the gamble but make sure the CPU is returnable if need be. I can tell you at stock vCore the q9xxx overheats with prime95 so you will need to undervolt with TS..........................

 

Ok.. Again.. Thanks SOOO much . If I have the QX9300 I should have the multipliers unlocked and overclocking will be easy correct? How is the x9100.. I may end up getting that.. I'mma order it here in the next hour or so .

 

both the qx9300 and x9100 are extreme CPU's. TS alows either to be overclocked and undervolted etc. The x9100 only being one silicon core set alows our cooling systems to handle it a bit better.

Either one being a 45w or 44w TDP cpu generate alot of heat and draw alot of power. A 180w brick may still be in order. If you just game and casual useage the x9100 is a much better choice. If you use software that can take advantage of the 4 cores of the quad it is a better choice,.

Not only does the quad core clock lower but for single thread applications per clock it is about 7% slower than a C2D. The reason is that it will take a single thread and spread it between the two cores. This forces the cores L2's to have to load the same data program etc in order to alter the laod between them. This replication slows overall execution per clock. As an exampl if you affinty SuperPI between core 0 & 1 for 4m at 3.2 GHz it takes 87.120 seconds if you alow core 0,1,2 & 3 it takes 91.236 seconds.

Now overall inefficiency is made up for in doubling the cores so the quad core only benefits you if you find the CPU at 100% usage for extended periods. Otherwise the x9100 will give you a better overall experience............