The Power of Core 2 Duo Extreme X7800 2.6Ghz Super Pi Score------

My friend just brought 3 of them,,, $620 each, one for him, one for me, and a spare one

 

Great scores man! The new Santa Rosa's will be especially smoking when the X7900's are released around Christmas! 2.8Ghz of fun!

 

see that ?

the mutiplier is unlocked

I might want to try 3G later

any suggestions? I never oced a laptop b4

^&^

 

ummm.... can someone get a wPrime score for this?

SuperPI is out-dated and ONLY single threaded.... its scores do not reflect the multi-cores accurately at all.

 

Hey Gophn, did you check out the WPrime thread? I posted some new scores and some puzzling questions. Maybe you have the answer.

 

my super pi scores were better than that on my notebook

I hate to hit somebody in a softspot but those cpus are a major waist of money.

A q6600 for ~266$ would have been a far better desision (desktop), or a e6600 if you want to do dual core and save some cash.

Also the unlocked multi must be set in bios, chances are a notebook bios wont give the option.

 

I got it, i'll post back soon.

 

Just ran superpi on the c90 with a e6700, no optimizations done here (even had azureus running in the background )

 

Windows XP Super PI...give me a min I'll switch to Vistax64 and see how it shows up there.

Edit: Here it is. Fairly comparable XP to Vista x64. Not much of a change.

 

semi-off-topic, which is better the x6800 or x7800, ones santa rosa and the others conroe rite?
Edit: i didnt link that santa rosa thing lol.. cool tho

 

A X6800 will outperform a X7800.

X6800 = 1066 FSB and 2.93Ghz Core 2 Duo
X7800 = 800 FSB and 2.6Ghz Core 2 Duo

Not by much but the X6800 will be ahead. When the X7900 is released i.e. the 2.8Ghz Core 2 Duo the gap will close but by then we will have the X6900's out 3.2Ghz Core 2 Duo.

It's always a push ahead. I wish Clevo had put more cooling into the D901C so that we could put Quads in...Now a QX6900....would be a monster.

 

Any of the "extreme" cpus are a major waist IMO.

 

how would the E6700 compare to X7800, both are 2.6, but the E has bigger FSB. and i mean stock, cuz i kno the extremes are meant to OC

 

The E6700 is 2.66Ghz the X7800 is 2.6Ghz, the E6700 wins by .06Ghz. + FSB speed + a bit cheaper than the X7800. (At least in my book)

 

The fsb has never been a bottleneck its more of a "wow" factor to get unfamilar buyers to think they are faster, in real life tho the higher fsb will do next to nothing for you.

The new eXX50 cpus have the 1333mhz fsb and a nice high clock speed for a low price, this is great for the average user who will not overclock, finaly a good price for a fast stock clocked chip. However for enthusiast its a bad thing because the fsb is so high and the cpu multi so low, it really can limit your OC just because you will hit the FSB limits of your cpu/mobo before you hit the clock speed limits.

So id recomend avoding those if your an overclocker.

 

If you were overclocking a 1066mhz chip, you would run into 1333mhz fsb while going up. I've seen a e6600 at 3.9ghz (1760fsb). I just think of it as Intel helping you along the way a little.

 

You have no idea what your talking about

Im talking about the core system fsb, not the cpus fsb.

aka 266mhz for the current c2d but its much higher at 333 for the new cpus and that means a lower multi for the same given clock speed.

You want a high multi, infact I sold my 3.2ghz opteron 146 for my 3ghz opteron 148 just because the multi is 1 higher on the 148 and I needed that one number higher to run my ram in 1:1 and also because my mobo couldnt handle much more than 400fsb before it went boom.

Newer mobos are handling a higher fsb better, but still running an excessive fsb is killing them, in both terms of life and possibly stability, and for what gain?? none, a higher fsb means more bandwidth there for info to move around in, but since there was enough room already you dont gain anything from it.

Also some of the guys at extreme sys have already noted that the new 1333mhz cpus even the ES versions wich generly are the best performing chips have started to die out when overclocked from hitting there own internal fsb limit before the mobo even hit the limit.

Intel is not helping you along the way, they are pulling the bag over the eyes of people like yourself and slowly taking the overclocking enthusist maket away.


Thats why the q6600 is the big deal now, 4 cores at 2.4ghz but with a 9x multi = insane power when overclocked and a great overclock ability. Even better the new G0 steping is avalible on them. All for ~280$

 

well, the q6600 at 1333mhz is the same as a e6850. I know what happens! Yeah, fsb is high, but 975x and p965 can take up to 420-440mhz bus speed. For the xx50 processors, the multiplier went down and the fsb went up. I know that, but like I said, a q6600 at 333mhz quad pumped is the same as a 6850 stock.

I know you are not getting the full overclocking experience, but overall clockspeed is higher. Also, your ram:cpu ratio fully doesn't depend on that. It all deals with the way your ddr2 ram set ratio wise before you start to crank on it.

 

Well the q6600 has 4 cores tho and its like the same price.

The 6850 is ok with a 9x multi, once you go below that tho, its too low for my liking, and if you going to toss the 300$ for the 6850 there is no reason to not get the quad core really.

So its just not a good nitch on the enthusiast market.

 

But you understand now what I was trying to say before you made your long story.

 

agree to disagree

 

before your guy's lil back and forth, i actually thought i knew something about CPUs... now im sooo lost lol, as to wat FSB means wat and these multipliers, theres the 1300 FSB then but theres the 266 ... gahhh

 

Front side buss is the FSB.

I have a rather good explanation of it and how it works in my overclocking sectioin of my review for the asus c90s.

I explane how the core fsb effects your cpu speeds and your ram speeds.

Give it a read over and see if it helps you:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=142447

lots of other good info there too like game performance in different operating systems.

 

Yes, its true, it does not reflect the total speed of the dual core CPU, but it DOES reflect how a single threaded application will behave on it compared to another.