ECC memory is error correcting memory.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=...804d37b84b33a1
Printable View
ECC memory is error correcting memory.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=...804d37b84b33a1
Would you recommend using Xeon then JDC? I am using for Video Editing and Gaming. Sorry for the 20/20 questions.
Xeons are usually used in servers, and are quite a bit more expensive than the equivalent Core series for the same kind of performance. And ECC memory is also really for servers, where data integrity is all important. It's performance is worse than standard RAM, and it's also more expensive
Video editing is one of those tasks where you just might benefit from a socket 1366 CPU and triple-channel memory. I have a 136 Core i7 rig myself, and it certainly is a speedy bast :) Unfortunately, though, the cost of memory has increased a lot since I built mine at the end of last year.
A triple-channel 6GB kit of the same RAM as I have is $180:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820145250
That really depends on your budget. If you can get an LGA 1366 motherboard, Xeon CPU (5600 series), and memory for a price you like, that is what I would go for. An LGA 1156 system would probably work just as well, unless you really want something super fast.
Does triple channel means that you have to have 3 sticks inorder for it to power up, similar to dual channel require 2 sticks. It is not the cost of the triple channel only but the power consumption for a 1366 is a Bloomfield which is 130w. That is not energy conserve for me. When I put in my Q6600, I thought 105w was too much already. Too bad they don't have Lynnfield for 1366 yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperSparks
You wouldn't need 3 DIMMs to power up, but you need 3 matching DIMMs to take advantage of the triple channel feature.
http://www.ninjalane.com/articles/ge...on/dualvtriple
Yes, as JDC says, you only need the 3 sticks to gt the best performance - it ill power up with a single stick.
It is true that S1156 CPUs are a bit more energy efficient than S1366. However, the 40 Watt difference between the two is only when they are both maxed out. Under normal usage the difference in power consumption is a great deal less, and I don't think it should be a huge consideration.
FWIW, I have my S1366 beast of a rig, and also a S1156 Core i3 Home Theatre PC. Although the Core i3 is commendably frugal (only 21 Watts at idle for the whole rig :) ), I notice that it has to work much harder just to run Win 7 - a lot of the time it i around 33% CPU in Task Manager. My i7-920 spends most of its day at 0% CPU. I suspect that there would be comparatively little to choose between the power used when you factor in that sort of thing.
Very good information.Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperSparks
If you can swing it, get MaximumPC magazine for Sept. Then read "Dream Machine 2010"
Yalk about over kill. . . .
Wikipedia: TDP (Thermal Design Power / Thermal Design Point)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_design_power
Quote:
The TDP is typically not the most power the chip could ever draw, such as by a power virus, but rather the maximum power that it would draw when running real applications. This ensures the computer will be able to handle essentially all applications without exceeding its thermal envelope, or requiring a cooling system for the maximum theoretical power, which would cost more but in favor of extra headroom for processing power.
In some cases the TDP has been under-estimated and that in real applications (typically strenuous, such as video encoding or games) the CPU has exceeded the TDP. In this case, the CPU will either cause a system failure (a "therm-trip") or throttle its speed down[1]. Most modern CPUs will only cause a therm-trip on a catastrophic cooling failure such as a stuck fan or a loose heatsink.
Since safety margins and the definition of what constitutes a real application vary between manufacturers, TDP values between different manufacturers cannot be accurately compared. While a processor with a TDP of 100 W will almost certainly use more power at full load than a processor with a 10 W TDP, it may or may not use more power than a processor from a different manufacturer that has a 90 W TDP. Additionally, TDPs are often specified for families of processors, with the low-end models usually using significantly less power than those at the high end of the family.
Thanks Train and Spy.
Hey Nick, since you played with lots of board, which board loads quickest from BIOS to Windows? Is Foxconn and Asus load faster than Gigabyte? I had an Asus board before and it loads up to Windows pretty quick but that board was back in 2001.
I think Steve is a big Foxconn fan so I will ask him.
Also, what does it mean when there is an O.C. next to the display in NewEgg? Does it mean to Overclock to get to this speed?
"DDR3 2000(O.C.)*/1866(O.C.)*/1800(O.C.)*/1600(O.C.)/1333/1066"
My last Gigabyte board took about 15-20 seconds before it reaches Windows. Once Windows begin to load, it takes only 3 seconds to get to my desktop since I have a pair of RAID 0 SSD on TRIM.
The O.C. listings on NewEgg means overclocked. On boot times, the more features the motherboard, the more BIOS checks are likely, increasing boot times. You can probably turn off some of the checks, but I don't do that. 15 to 20 seconds is not too bad for BIOS boot time. I have had systems with a decent motherboard feature set and 7200 rpm HDs take 30 seconds to boot into Windows.
One to two minutes os my normal boot time.
I go get a cup of coffee, that way i am ready when it finishes.
OK, thanks guys. I guess I was being a big baby.:p
As for the O.C., I am still not too cleared. For example, DDR3 2000(O.C.)*, does that mean it takes DDR3 2000 but needs to be overclocked or I can put DDR3 1600 and overclock up that memory up to DDR3.
Triple Channel Memory is still way too expensive. It is like $500 for 12gb. So I am thinking of buying one stick of 4gb DDR3 1333 Dual Channel for the time being until Triple Channel goes down. What do you think?
If I was to buy one DIMM now and when I am ready to buy the other two DIMMs later, can they be different brands but same specs such as latency and speed?Quote:
Originally Posted by jdc2000
Also, you said that Xeon chips cannot be overclocked. I did some researched and I see some reviews from that newegg post of the xeon CPU that you posted. Some of the reviews talked about overclocking a xeon CPU. I know Nick is not for Server CPU using as Desktop CPU but I am doing some research in your recommendation. Most likely, I am not going to overclock anything but I still would like to know the full capabilities when 5 years from now, I feel like experiementing again.:D
Thanks
There is no such thing as DDR3 200, it is probably 1600 OC'd to 2000. I have DDR3 1333 in my i7 rig, though the mobo runs it at DDR3 1066 on a standard clock. But because I have overclocked mine a bit it is reported as DDR3 1200.
I wouldn't bother with a 12giog kit unless you are heavily into virtualisation, as I am. If I am not running a VM, then 80% of my 12 GB is going unused, and for most folk a 6 gig kit would be more than sufficient. That would cost you somewhere around $180 at current prices.
You can mix and match brands, but I wouldn't advise it unless you really have to. The whole point of buying a kit is that they match the modules up so that you can be sure you are getting the ultimate performance from then RAM.