My current system is the first one I've overclocked. I only had two computers of my own before that, so I'm still kind of new to the enthusiast scene. I bought a E4300 for my current build; a FSB bump allowed it to go from 1.8GHz to 3.0GHz. The Core 2's are pretty darn good when it comes to overclocking. I mean, it's been written about, but once I found out for myself it was quite impressive to get that muich performance for price. Whenever I put together my next build, a highly overclockable CPU will definitely be going in there. :victory:
Nice job.. the E4300 was a great deal. I've got an E6300 (1.86 ghz) - running at 3.5 ghz for nearly 2 years now. It's been a good processor. They do seem a ridiculous bargain when you compare them to the stock speeds!
And I've an 8800 GTS 320 - it's getting a little long in the tooth for my needs, but it still holds up pretty well. I got it for a fantastic deal $219 (when its stablemates were running just over $310) - combo'd a buy.com deal with a coupon.
Now is a super time to grab either a video card, memory or CPU.. prices are great!
Nice job.. the E4300 was a great deal. I've got an E6300 (1.86 ghz) - running at 3.5 ghz for nearly 2 years now. It's been a good processor. They do seem a ridiculous bargain when you compare them to the stock speeds!
And I've an 8800 GTS 320 - it's getting a little long in the tooth for my needs, but it still holds up pretty well. I got it for a fantastic deal $219 (when its stablemates were running just over $310) - combo'd a buy.com deal with a coupon.
Now is a super time to grab either a video card, memory or CPU.. prices are great!
With that kind of overclock you have, they are a ridiculous bargain.
:victory:
I just need a video card to replace my aging 6800GS :puppydog:
No extension: Windows XP D-Day arrives Monday, June 30
Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:33PM EDT
After delays, delays, and rumors of more delays, the era of Windows XP has finally reached its final hours. Microsoft has made it official: Monday, June 30 will be the last day Microsoft sells XP to the masses. In fact, some companies have already stopped offering XP as an option on new machines as they prep for the switchover.
Earlier rumors that Microsoft might extend the sales date have proven untrue, as Microsoft has reiterated that, indeed, June 30 will be the final sales date cut-off for the product. That's it. It's a Vista world now.
Loopholes will remain for some PC makers for some months to come, namely those who are building ultra-low-cost computers that aren't powerful enough for Vista. (Though some machines in this class, like HP's Mini-Note, actually come with Vista anyway.) For at least the rest of the year, downgrades remain an option for many PC purchasers too, though you'll have to jump through some hoops, and possibly pay extra, in order to get XP.
As I've written several times (and reassured many of you in email responses), XP fans needn't panic about the loss of XP. Even if you don't have a copy on hand, the product will be available through many channels for years to come (and likely forever), through both retail outlets and the aftermarket. As I type this, nearly 1,000 copies of XP are on sale on eBay, where they usually sell for less than $100.
In other news, Microsoft has recently pledged to keep supporting XP, including the release of security updates, all the way through 2014. So XP users needn't fret that you'll suddenly be victimized by hackers due to unpatched security flaws. Updates should work exactly as you're used to them currently through the Windows Update system.
bmwracer wrote:
For at least the rest of the year, downgrades remain an option for many PC purchasers too, though you'll have to jump through some hoops, and possibly pay extra, in order to get XP.
Yeah, that would be how Dell is going about the downgrade thing right now.
I also read that Intel smacked down Vista by foregoing a Vista upgrade in favor of XP. Apparently there was 'no need' for Intel to switch to Vista.
Yeah, that would be how Dell is going about the downgrade thing right now.
I also read that Intel smacked down Vista by foregoing a Vista upgrade in favor of XP. Apparently there was 'no need' for Intel to switch to Vista.
This is generally a reasonable position for a business to take - most places I've worked would actually do fine with Windows 2000 still and don't really need XP.
But, that being said, if you're a home user installing a new OS or a business building and integrating new machines into a new infrastructure or a sufficiently scalable existing infrastructure, and you have to choose, there is really no reason to not go with Vista. It's a fine OS - I've been running it for nearly 2 years on lots of different systems and have yet to find a reason to bitch about it as much as people try to ;-)
This is generally a reasonable position for a business to take - most places I've worked would actually do fine with Windows 2000 still and don't really need XP.
But, that being said, if you're a home user installing a new OS or a business building and integrating new machines into a new infrastructure or a sufficiently scalable existing infrastructure, and you have to choose, there is really no reason to not go with Vista. It's a fine OS - I've been running it for nearly 2 years on lots of different systems and have yet to find a reason to bitch about it as much as people try to ;-)
As far as business, yeah. Where I work, we were in charge of upgrading the machines to Service Pack 2... for Windows 2000. At a time when XP was already well underway. It really does depend on usage.
Haven't found a reason to go with Vista yet since, er, I'm using OS/X. I might need Vista on a separate machine just for the Media Center side of it; can't have the TV all by its lonesome, and watching dramas on a 13-inch screen isn't really cutting it.
So what is everyone's opinion on the Intel Quad-Cores. I have to get a new computer eventually, and it would be nice to have a system that can do hard-subbing and encoding in more reasonable times.(I'm currently using a P3 :beaten: )
Kijinnmaru wrote:So what is everyone's opinion on the Intel Quad-Cores. I have to get a new computer eventually, and it would be nice to have a system that can do hard-subbing and encoding in more reasonable times.(I'm currently using a P3 :beaten: )
They're overrated, IMO.
Take a look at the numbers I posted earlier for the Core 2 Duo I have at work...
I'm not even sure if Windows or any software out there is even optimized for Quads... Sounds like more of a specmanship game than anything else.
Kijinnmaru wrote:So what is everyone's opinion on the Intel Quad-Cores. I have to get a new computer eventually, and it would be nice to have a system that can do hard-subbing and encoding in more reasonable times.(I'm currently using a P3 :beaten: )
If video encoding will be your primary use, then a quad-core would be useful. From what I've read, articles and reviews, Divx and H.264 encoding works well with quad-cores despite the slower clock speed compared a higher clocked dual-core in the same price range. The downside is that Xvid encoding works with higher clock speeds from what I've seen. So for most encoding, quad-core is the way to go, unless for some reason you can only encode with Xvid.
If video encoding will be your primary use, then a quad-core would be useful. From what I've read, articles and reviews, Divx and H.264 encoding works well with quad-cores despite the slower clock speed compared a higher clocked dual-core in the same price range. The downside is that Xvid encoding works with higher clock speeds from what I've seen. So for most encoding, quad-core is the way to go, unless for some reason you can only encode with Xvid.
This would be my understanding as well. Quad-core processors are great for tasks that are multithreaded, including big batch jobs like video and encoding - if the program you're employing supports multiple threads - take a look around the net to find out if your favorite conversion program is multi-threaded - then you'll have your answer.
However... my 2 cents - if you are on a budget and a general user who is going to do encoding only some of the time, you're really fine going with a 2 core for now (I'm a pretty hardcore computer and I rarely find that my CPU is a bottleneck) - the price difference, even for the Q6600 just doesn't make sense yet.
At the same time, if you're only going to be doing long encoding, rendering, file serving, database queries, etc., then you want it done as fast and efficiently as possible - consider a quad core processor: the extra $50-75 will seem very worthwhile when it saves you 10 or more hours a month for the next 2 years.
I guess a good dual core would serve me well then. I would only be using it for some video editing, hardsubbing, and encoding with some everyday use mixed in. I don't play games on my computer anymore. BMW's times on a 2.4GHZ was impressive at half real-time. I take it I can't get those times with Virtualdub? Of course, by the time I get around to getting a new computer, the next super processor will probably be out. :mrgreen:
Kijinnmaru wrote:I guess a good dual core would serve me well then. I would only be using it for some video editing, hardsubbing, and encoding with some everyday use mixed in. I don't play games on my computer anymore. BMW's times on a 2.4GHZ was impressive at half real-time. I take it I can't get those times with Virtualdub? Of course, by the time I get around to getting a new computer, the next super processor will probably be out. :mrgreen:
Regardless of whether you get a dual or quad core, it will certainly be a whole lot faster than a P3 :victory: