![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Fast laptop
- Thread starter turmelle
- Start date
OK, so Since I have a 2.6 P4 in my laptop (not Moble) and an XP 2600 running side by side I have watched my laptop consistently spank my XP. I decided to go with P4's for my blade (3 * 2.4C) and overclock them to 250 FSB (3.0G). I will run 2 instances of F@H due to the Hyperthreading.
So this is my math. On average (same WU) my P4 is 21.4% faster and from what I have read Hyperthreading add about 14%-19% boost. adding an arbitrary 7% due to the 3.0G (over the 2.6G) I will be looking at 42.4% - 47.4% speed boost with these chips. Cost of Barton 2500 = 93.91 : Cost of 2.4C = $168.64...
Looks like I would end up about even when it comes to money on getting 6 AMD's VS 3 Intel's, but the Intel boards cost 4% - 7% more. So why did I go with the 3 Intel's? Only 3 systems to worry about instead of 6. I am looking @ an extra 8% - 13% initial charge (3 Intel vs 6 AMD) but I think it will work out in the long run.
P.S. - I am not an Intel FanBoy. I prefer AMD in my main rig but for Folding, stable SSE and Hyperthreading seem to win for me anyway.
I am open to suggestions, did I screw up royally?
Kroz
So this is my math. On average (same WU) my P4 is 21.4% faster and from what I have read Hyperthreading add about 14%-19% boost. adding an arbitrary 7% due to the 3.0G (over the 2.6G) I will be looking at 42.4% - 47.4% speed boost with these chips. Cost of Barton 2500 = 93.91 : Cost of 2.4C = $168.64...
Looks like I would end up about even when it comes to money on getting 6 AMD's VS 3 Intel's, but the Intel boards cost 4% - 7% more. So why did I go with the 3 Intel's? Only 3 systems to worry about instead of 6. I am looking @ an extra 8% - 13% initial charge (3 Intel vs 6 AMD) but I think it will work out in the long run.
P.S. - I am not an Intel FanBoy. I prefer AMD in my main rig but for Folding, stable SSE and Hyperthreading seem to win for me anyway.
I am open to suggestions, did I screw up royally?
Kroz
The favor is leaning towards Intel lately, but there is a problem with your analogy. You're comparing relative speed and cost of a stock Barton 2500 against an overclocked 2.4c. Bartons can get to 2.2Ghz rather easily and that's about on par with a 2.4C stock. I would say you're looking at closer to 25-30% gain if you make 3Ghz on the P4. The 3 P4 systems vs 6 AMD would only be applicable with a 100% faster P4 system.
Now if you could get 3.2ghz you probably could beat 4 OC'd AMD systems. And yeah, stable SSE is definitely a factor.I haven't looked at costs on MB/Ram for boards that can take a P4 to these extreme levels. I use all-in-one MBs in the $37-45 range.
Fewer systems is better so that is worth a premium for ease of management and lower power costs.
Let us know how it goes.