New
#1341
I've upgraded my two-year-old X58 based system with an i7-970. It even boots up faster.
Bye.
I've upgraded my two-year-old X58 based system with an i7-970. It even boots up faster.
Bye.
Nice scores and thanks for the tip for the BIOS settings; your system would be really fast with an SSD drive, even with the SATA 2.0 ports.
I am actually considering moving the SSD to the SATA 2.0 port for two reasons. One is no TRIM support with the Marvell chip and the other is that occasionally the "mv91xx.sys" causes BSOD. The the disk performance WEI will probably drop to 7.5 or so, but the TRIM will work with the Intel driver and probably gets rid of the BSOD as well.
Is it true that getting a SSD will not improve frame rates in games? But will decrease load times in games?
This is what I call an "on demand" overclock. It idles at x9 multi, and averages 3.21GHz. All power savings, only high clock when needed.
"It actually makes so much sense to overclock the Core i5 from its 133 MHz base clock to a little more that we recommend this to every user who is interested in getting more risk-free performance at zero cost. Moving from a 133 MHz BCLK to 150 or 160 MHz, which was the maximum setting in our tests that didn’t require a voltage increase, does not increase your total system idle power. Apparently, the processor power saving features keep idle power in check very efficiently. Peak power, which would be our top reason against high overclocks, still doesn’t explode. We measured less than a 6% increase in peak power on the MSI P55-GD65 when going from a 133 to 160 MHz clock. This had the processor reaching 3.36/3.84 GHz maximum clock speeds in the two applicable Turbo Boost modes (one to two and three to four cores used)."
Efficiency Explored: What's The Perfect Clock Rate For Your Core i5? : Hunting Down The Perfect Clock Speed For Core i5
A Guy
My CPU is the i5-760 and my specs have been updated...
Guys, I appreciate the help; however...
I did not intend to build a machine that can be OC-d easily; it is just a coincidence that is due to how Asus and others build motherboards nowadays. The default 2.8GHz CPU speed is perfectly fine for me for what I do on this machine.
My intend had been is to build a new machine with the fastest storage sub-system currently available (back in November of 2010) at a relatively reasonable cost. The SATA 3.0 support and the Crucial C300 SSD fit this bill just just fine. Having WEI disk score of 7.9 made much more difference in the performance of this system than any OC-ing the CPU could in my opinion. At least for regular usage of the machine...
I just didn't think that doing so would result in a better WEI score for the storage sub-system than the WEI score for the CPU. While it seems that the CPU is the performance bottleneck, that certainly isn't the case. The memory, video, and disk performances are still lagging behind the the CPU performance, even if WEI says otherwise.
It just looked funny that the 2.8GHz quad CPU shows up as the lowest score in the Windows WEI...
Here's my WEI, can't remember if I ever posted it before.