In the past it was just mhz, now it's cores, 32 vs 64 bit, etc. What ARE the fastest intel processors now? The fastest mhz you can find in a quad core? Is a 64 bit processor faster? Does a 64 bit processor do nothing for non-64 bit apps? What does intel have coming down the path within the next 12 months that is faster?
number of cores don't technically represent if threads are ran "faster", just more bandwidth, less thread queuing. Thats how the 32/64 bit-width should be seen, in terms of bandwidth, not speed. Intel looks to be moving towards more energy friendly design, i.e., smaller fab process. That is, more room for more cores. You will likely see an 8 core processor in the next 12 months. A consumer version? Maybe, maybe not. INTC always release an "extreme" version first, which is out of most consumers reach, cuz its almost always over $1000.
Intel Core 2 DUO E8500 3.16Ghz LGA775 FSB1333 6Mb. L2 cache BOX.....since quad core can't be fully utilized for trading purpose E8500 is the best choice and it's cheap If you're a complete idiot you can buy: Intel Core2 Extreme QX9775 3.2 Ghz SCKT 771 FSB1600 12Mb cache
I use TSSupport Multicharts charting package, which is Intel multi-thread enhanced. The extra cores make a difference when I monitor massive amounts of live tick charts. A $200 Q6600 SLACR can run at 3.2ghz with relative ease on air cooling, which is ball-park to the Core2 Extremes on the market. Many users have Q6600 @ 3.6GHz using coolers such as the Tuniq Tower 120 or Thermalright 120.
I overclocked my Q6600 to 3.0GHz just by changing the FSB. I didn't want to mess with voltages and I don't need that extra 6%.
I would never overclock my trading workstation. At least not without a serious water cooling solution. And even still, I wouldn't OC it over 10%. Ive seen ppl in other forums getting ridiculous performance gains from those Q6600's, quite impressive. It never used to be like this a few years ago.
Q6600 was designed to be OC'd. or should I say, Intel intentionally underrated the spec? With the OC functions built into today's MB, OC can be done through a variety of adjustments. All the options are menu driven: changing your clock speed? it is just a few clicks away.
Not true at all. Intel would never intentionally design their chips to be overclocked. Silicon based chips are always designed on the wafer to reach their peak performance potential (think the extreme chips). But for the most part, the chips are unable to sustain stable performance at those clock speeds. So instead of tossing the chips, Intel just lowers the clock speed and rebrands it as a new SKU. This also applies to n-core chips in the future. Some cores don't may be problematic, so Intel will just turn off one or more of the cores and rebrand it. Think of an 8-core chip selling as a 6-core chip. Semi's are already doing this in the embedded systems world. I was confused when freescale sent us some prototype dual core ARM's but only one core showed up in the bootROM. There response was, they forgot to change the SKU silk screen. And sure enough, they eventually did. Their single cores are actually dual cores, with one core disabled due to performance quality. The MOBO makers on the other hand have everything to gain by including clock changing settings in their products.
Why not? My Q6600 (SLACR) trading workstation stable @ 3.6Ghz is throttled back for trading to 3.0ghz (25% OC) using "stock" voltages, mated with best air cooler on the market (Tuniq Tower 120) and results in: - 37C idle temp - typical daily load temp (trading hrs) 41-43C. - Prime95 and Memtest stable for 4 days straight (max temp during these extreme tests ~ 61C) Those daily typical load temps are better than standard clock (2.4Ghz) Q6600 CPU's using the stock retail Intel heat-sink/fan combo. Without question, CPU longevity and reliability is based on temp & applied voltage. If I am getting better than stock load temps while OC'd and using stock voltage, what's the worry? I certainly trust the system when placing upwards of 20 ES contract trades on a routine basis.
That certainly is impressive. I will look in to it when I do upgrade my everyday computer. For my trading computer however, it just comes down to piece of mind for me. If the workstation were to lock up just once, it wouldn't be worth it for me. I would rather pay the extra $100-200 to run at Intel's set higher clock speed. Paranoia, call it what you want. I am reacting from a past OC experience.