Stop giving bad advice. RAID-0 is unsafe as primary storage. Save a few seconds for each file IOP? So what? When one drive fails, the whole array gets taken with it and the user is left screwed. Depending when his last backups were made, he may have to catch up with a week's lost work. Not to mention the time spent reinstalling the OS and applications.

Repeat: RAID-0 is unsafe as primary storage.

Not to mention, getting more space can result in getting more (sequential) speed due to the increased platter density. New 500G drives are competitive with Raptor 150's sequential speed, while being 3x larger and 1/2 as cheap.

I think it's a never ending debate and what a person should do is to read up some reviews and understand what a Dual vs Quad core can do in different tasks, programs, games then decide what's best for himself. Honestly, there are plenty of them around the Internet and all we need is to "google" it up I've read it myself too and base on that, I decide not to go for Quad core at this point in time. Not to mention that the Wolfdale's are better overclockers for now (in terms of performance VS money)

i've tested lost planet.......
there is an option 2 set either 2 o 4 cores...............

if u hav quad, set it to 4........den only ur c da performance of quad............

quad gives u more flexibility..........
as i said in previous post, u pc dun just run a single application @ a time...............

p/s: quad hav more OC potential den dual...............

dun compare OC for q6600 & 8xxx..........
it is just not fair, 65nm vs 45nm............

This post has been edited by tech3910: May 13 2008, 02:25 PM

Nicely said there. I guess it all depends on user's specific tasks and usage as mentioned earlier. And performance/price ratio is the best guide to be referred to have a quality CPU that can save money and still deliver the perofrmance you need.

tech3910, what has 65nm vs 45nm got to do with performance of the CPU?

45nm has more OC potential.....................

basically(usually) smaller is better @ OC....

A trend on the web is that, javascript is getting the spotlight, and should the js vm making good use of threads... quad cores might be needed. You can try on website with full animation on js it could choke the entire browser but too bad it just utilizes 1 cores.

Other than that, well most 'office' task even a single core is enough.

I had my C2D overclocked and did not have problems in almost everything I do including Java websites If you open up a log to track CPU usage, you'll be suprised how hard it is to hit 100% all the time. Of course there are always exceptions which is why I say case by case basis. If we don't need it, don't get it and why not use the cash for something else. Those 27" LCD's are sweet, lol.

30 inch more sweet ^^

however... how long can core 2 duo last in market... which curious me....

There would always be a new line, family of CPU's and this would depend on Intel's roadmap.

my c2d still doing a good job......so far so good.....
really like to try the quad but dont have the budget right now

the only thing i like about my current c2d is... the speed when extracting rar file.. but... my e6420 seems to have so heat porblem so still thinking of some solution... might want to try back that intel original hsf.

Not really.Q6600 vs Q9450,Q6600 win in max oc Because 8x vs 9x multiplier

dis is b cause q9450 has less cache den 6600..............
try 9550 insted...........

Wrong.
Dude, stop posting nuts again and again.

Q9450 losses to Q6600 in overclocking is because of low multiplier, not because of the cache.
Cache has nothing to do with overclocking.

This post has been edited by sHawTY: May 13 2008, 10:09 PM

multiplier & cache both is essential in OC.........
i nvr test the 9k series b4 (no sample)...............

anyway.....9450 & 9550 both has 12mb cache, 9550 shud do better @ OC....................

This post has been edited by tech3910: May 13 2008, 10:28 PM

u never tested it and u dare to give suggestion???

This post has been edited by tech_frix: May 13 2008, 10:33 PM

i just got mix up wit da 9300 spec.......dats all............

even if u refering to q9300 specs u shud noe it still cant OC better than a q6600 right


n hope u can enlighten me on how cache affects OC