Now I gots a question for those that are folding with a Q9450. I was kinda' tardy to the party and just got 2x Q6600 G0's in the last couple of months. I was kinda' surfin' around our fine forum and noticed in the Intel thread where a poster said the Q9450 at stock (2.66 GHz) would be equal to a Q6600 at 3.2 GHz OC' in the folding at home arena. I guess that extra cache really helps in folding,12 MB's vs 8 MB's :
I thought I was a "fat cat" smokin' away with my 2x Q6600's foldin' 24/7 and I even had thoughts of getting a Q something 45nm, with 12 MB cache .. The posters over there are discussing a new revision for the Q9450's (I guess something like B3 to G0 for the Kent) and they're also discussing the Nehalem chip, sayin' it might be 50% faster than the 45 nm Q9450's. If all that's truthin' Intel is really on a roll
How's all this sound to you of "infinite wisdom" in the computer folding business?
I thought I was a "fat cat" smokin' away with my 2x Q6600's foldin' 24/7 and I even had thoughts of getting a Q something 45nm, with 12 MB cache .. The posters over there are discussing a new revision for the Q9450's (I guess something like B3 to G0 for the Kent) and they're also discussing the Nehalem chip, sayin' it might be 50% faster than the 45 nm Q9450's. If all that's truthin' Intel is really on a roll
How's all this sound to you of "infinite wisdom" in the computer folding business?