Soldato
Why not? If you don't need the other 3 cores for anything why should worry about them being clocked down?
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Phenom II X6
- Thread starter chaosquall
- Start date
Why not? If you don't need the other 3 cores for anything why should worry about them being clocked down?
If you clock all cores to the same max clock, it won't reach 4.3ghz. Best to enable turbo to go that far with 3, then if you have one or more apps that only utilise one thread, then their tasks are completed faster.
It makes sense really, if you're not using 1-3 cores, might aswell cut the multi to save energy, and up the others to make those cores complete things faster.
It makes sense really, if you're not using 1-3 cores, might aswell cut the multi to save energy, and up the others to make those cores complete things faster.
but your forgetting about the voltage..
i think turbo core only up's the multipler...
if u run a 3.8ghz normal clock with lets set 1.375v, when turbo is on the multipler will go up but the voltage stays at 1.375v so it'll fail.
turbo core is fine for stock because amd as made sure these chip as enough headroom on stock voltage for turbo
Last edited:
Soldato
Because £100 is nothing 
But considering how many games are going to be console ports (hence tricore optimised), boosting 3 up past normal limits wouldn't be a bad thing - IF it's stable.
But considering how many games are going to be console ports (hence tricore optimised), boosting 3 up past normal limits wouldn't be a bad thing - IF it's stable.
Because £100 is nothing
But considering how many games are going to be console ports (hence tricore optimised), boosting 3 up past normal limits wouldn't be a bad thing - IF it's stable.
When considering an entire new rig for £1600, £100 equates to just over 6%. Not really a deal breaker in the scheme of things
When considering an entire new rig for £1600, £100 equates to just over 6%. Not really a deal breaker in the scheme of things
most people dont spend anywhere near 1600 quid though i doubt that 1600 quid even included just the base components.
cpu+motherboard+memory
you cant say you need XXX more on a case , gpu etc just because your going intel only the cost of the mobo+cpu+memory matters in comparisons between cpus
I was under the impression that Turbo boosted the voltage aswell? When twinned with C&Q it'd have the same effect though, the 800mhz cores will be running with 0.8v or something like that, then the other cores will be set to the max voltage of whatever is set? So if you set it to 1.5v or near so it is stable with a 4.3ghz turbo, then life is good.
It's also struck me though, how can you test turbo for stability? can you set Prime95 to only run on certain cores? Every combination of 1 core, 2 cores and 3 cores at turbo will need to be tested.
Soldato
What you have to consider is that most people considering X6's already have Phenom setups of some kind, and its a simple case of swapping out the CPU... not building an entire new rig or moving platform.
i've read a manuel for a 890fx and the only setting for turbo core is enable/disable. no other options
u could set Prime95 to only run 3 threads and then windows task manager to limit prine95 to only use core 0, 1, 2
Last edited:
Caporegime
Got my 890FX board up and running.
I miss the gigabyte BIOS so much =/.
I miss the gigabyte BIOS so much =/.
What you didn't consider was I am building a new rig so to me £100 isn't really the issue. As for coming from a Phenom set up for the extra performance, if there is any outside of highly multi threaded apps, then the cost for a little more seems to make even less sense. So a small upgrade on the same platform doesn't make sense, neither does switching from an existing platform like i7 or top end i5 which only leaves those considering new rigs or big upgrades.
With that in mind I stand by my £100 difference not really being a deal breaker
Oh and arknor there are loads of people on here that spend much more than this on a new rig and £1600 every 6yrs or so isn't too bad in my mind
which make?
i don't like asrock 890FX board because of the bios but the layout of the pci/e's is nice
the gigabyte 890FX board have better bios's but the layout of the pci/e's is bad and only 1 pci slot
Last edited:
Caporegime
ohhhh asus... i don't like either...
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 13
I don't get what you mean with that comment. Your opinion is based on what reviews?
Personal hate towards Amd or first hand experience with an X6?
What you didn't consider was I am building a new rig so to me £100 isn't really the issue. As for coming from a Phenom set up for the extra performance, if there is any outside of highly multi threaded apps, then the cost for a little more seems to make even less sense. So a small upgrade on the same platform doesn't make sense, neither does switching from an existing platform like i7 or top end i5 which only leaves those considering new rigs or big upgrades.
With that in mind I stand by my £100 difference not really being a deal breaker
Oh and arknor there are loads of people on here that spend much more than this on a new rig and £1600 every 6yrs or so isn't too bad in my mind
theres loads of people who dont though most only spend around 700 on a base unit.
1600 every 6 years would be better turned into 800 every 3 years
to some 100 quid does matter but i guess it depends on how much of your comp your upgrading a lot of us buy a really nice expensive case to keep for a very long time then only really upgrade the mobo+cpu+ram+gfx card every other year and new hdd/cd/monitor as needed