Tweet
I'm building a new computer (in Australia) and was originally planning to get this RAM with an i3, until I realised the PU doesn't support it.
I'm looking for clarification on some matters to help make sure that buying the i5 760 isn't a bad choice for what I want (not much video encoding but want to future-proof it; can't see hyperthreading for 8 threads being of much use in the next 4 years for many different programs).
Personally, I think that would be a really great addition to G.Skill's products pages, a list of Qualified Processors as well as Qualified Motherboards.
I'll be getting an ASUS P7P55D-E PRO motherboard though, so no problem there for me.
I considered the Dual-Core i5 650(Hyperthreading) and the Quad-Core i5 670 (no Hyperthreading) and decided that for a little extra, I think I'd prefer the Quad Core to a hyperthreaded Dual-Core, provided I overclock the i670 to 3.2 or so, as there shouldn't be any difference on single-core applications (Hyperthreading doesn't help that) and really, a quad-core at 3.2Ghz should be much better for four-thread applications than a hyperthreaded 3.2Ghz dual-core, right? The two cores are still sharing the load that four would on a quad-core, so for demanding 4-thread tasks, the quad without hyperthreading is much better anyway, correct?
This leads me to the G.Skill-related question which is to ensure I don't buy a processor that won't handle this RAM. This RAM is supposedly for i5 and i7, but for ALL i5s?
I read somehwere that it's only for Lynnfield, the Quad-Cores, which would exclude the i5 650 as an option, but as hyperthreading is not necessary for this RAM to be supported, the i5 760 would manage it just fine, (and at 1.35v, 1600Mhz-DDR3 speed) correct?
To AMD fans, note that the 3.2Ghz AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition (OC to match the 966 at 3.4Ghz, of course) was a very tempting option, but I fancy the ASUS board bonuses (although the AMD counterpart has most of the same stuff anyway, I believe) and am hoping the 95W (compared to 125W) will save quite a bit of power (any information on how much it might equate to in $(US is fine if that makes it easier) would be SO APPRECIATED as I've had trouble finding many test results). It doesn't seem worth me spending about AU$110 (~US$97) for the i7 870.
If the wattage difference won't be very expensive, the X4 955 might be better value, but then the Turbo Boost and EIST (Side-Stepping for low idle power) seem like they might make up for it (and the lower W means I should be able to overclock more safely than with an X4 955).
Finally, to RAM-specific questions again:
How much power do 1.65v and 1.35v RAM use? Would the difference really save much money?
How much of a difference do the 7-8-7-24 timings make compared to 9-9-9-24 and if I wanted to overclock it to 7-7-7-21, would that be safe (and if so, with what settings).
So, opinions, facts, statistics and test results, please! All will be appreciated!
(Compatibility with i5 760 and power consumptions costs are the key queries, so if someone knew lots, posting nfo about those and then editing their post later to add the rest would be especially good).
I'm looking for clarification on some matters to help make sure that buying the i5 760 isn't a bad choice for what I want (not much video encoding but want to future-proof it; can't see hyperthreading for 8 threads being of much use in the next 4 years for many different programs).
Personally, I think that would be a really great addition to G.Skill's products pages, a list of Qualified Processors as well as Qualified Motherboards.
I'll be getting an ASUS P7P55D-E PRO motherboard though, so no problem there for me.
I considered the Dual-Core i5 650(Hyperthreading) and the Quad-Core i5 670 (no Hyperthreading) and decided that for a little extra, I think I'd prefer the Quad Core to a hyperthreaded Dual-Core, provided I overclock the i670 to 3.2 or so, as there shouldn't be any difference on single-core applications (Hyperthreading doesn't help that) and really, a quad-core at 3.2Ghz should be much better for four-thread applications than a hyperthreaded 3.2Ghz dual-core, right? The two cores are still sharing the load that four would on a quad-core, so for demanding 4-thread tasks, the quad without hyperthreading is much better anyway, correct?
This leads me to the G.Skill-related question which is to ensure I don't buy a processor that won't handle this RAM. This RAM is supposedly for i5 and i7, but for ALL i5s?
I read somehwere that it's only for Lynnfield, the Quad-Cores, which would exclude the i5 650 as an option, but as hyperthreading is not necessary for this RAM to be supported, the i5 760 would manage it just fine, (and at 1.35v, 1600Mhz-DDR3 speed) correct?
To AMD fans, note that the 3.2Ghz AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition (OC to match the 966 at 3.4Ghz, of course) was a very tempting option, but I fancy the ASUS board bonuses (although the AMD counterpart has most of the same stuff anyway, I believe) and am hoping the 95W (compared to 125W) will save quite a bit of power (any information on how much it might equate to in $(US is fine if that makes it easier) would be SO APPRECIATED as I've had trouble finding many test results). It doesn't seem worth me spending about AU$110 (~US$97) for the i7 870.
If the wattage difference won't be very expensive, the X4 955 might be better value, but then the Turbo Boost and EIST (Side-Stepping for low idle power) seem like they might make up for it (and the lower W means I should be able to overclock more safely than with an X4 955).
Finally, to RAM-specific questions again:
How much power do 1.65v and 1.35v RAM use? Would the difference really save much money?
How much of a difference do the 7-8-7-24 timings make compared to 9-9-9-24 and if I wanted to overclock it to 7-7-7-21, would that be safe (and if so, with what settings).
So, opinions, facts, statistics and test results, please! All will be appreciated!
(Compatibility with i5 760 and power consumptions costs are the key queries, so if someone knew lots, posting nfo about those and then editing their post later to add the rest would be especially good).
Comment