Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

So I'm going to get a i7 2600k along with a Z68 mobo of some kind just wondering what is a good aftermarket cooler for it?

I currently have a Zalman for my Q6600, seem to work fine.

Also what is currently the best bang for buck SSD out? Looking at the $250 - $350 mark. Only need 60Gb or so as it is only to be a OS drive. I'm getting a 600GB raptor for my games & all my old HDDs will carry over as storage drives.

My current gen 1 SSD is starting to die I think (randomly windows will freeze up & upon reboot, windows disk checker will pick up & fix some random corrupted files on the main OS drive).

Yeah coolermaster 212+ are good value for money I hear.

I got a Gigabyte Z68X-UD3R-B3 mobo. It's comes without a display port which saves a little money, meaning you must own a dedicated graphics card.. If you're buying a 2600k though I'm guessing you're not going to use the integrated graphics ;)

It does however still have the 'old school' style BIOS, not one of the fancy new GUI BIOS's. Whether that matters is personal choice, it will get updated eventually anyways.

@ SoFreshSoClean you've never done super pi test on your current rig?

image1js.th.jpg

this image shows intel gfx

the MA motherboard has a display port(sorry its HDMI) also i think main difference would be the amount of usable PCIe slots and you have pci to which i cant use my PCI tv tuner i had to rip out the pcie one from the media center, i too was expecting the newer fancy bios but that's ok touch bios works fine too

4616_big.jpg

thats where the extra money from a 2500k to a 2600k is

still a good score but not quite as fast, are you still running 4.3ghz

Yeah still on 4.2.. ordered the mounting bracket so I can put on my Thermalright Ultra 120 today :)

I got 5475 in 3dmark 11 on performance mode.. have you run that?

yeah, thats a good result what gfx card

i managed, my gfx card is very hard to overclock it gets unstable very quickly

P5440 3DMarks i7 2600k @ 4.3ghz @ 1.32v gfx 6950 @ 880mhz

http://3dmark.com/3dm11/1629327

im thinking of rerunning it with the suggested drivers

not sure if turning of HT and running it on 1 core would make a difference

AMD 6950 @ 880mhz (BUT it's unlocked to a 6970, makes a bees dick of a difference though anyway)

I can't actually record my result on the 3dmark leaderboard because of what I've done to the graphics card, says its unsupported or something

oh you have the 2gb model thats cool that our systems are sooo close yet dont seem to make a difference

yeah mine isn't recorded either

Your result has the following problem(s) and will not be shown for example on leaderboards:: Graphics driver is not approved. (What is this?)

and also this msg

Your Score is Low Compared to Similar Systems.

There may be a problem.

nice to know it thinks there may be a problem, or others have hacked their scores ;)

Wouldn't surprise me.. I got that msg too, I was thinking WTF both my CPU and GFX card are overlocked heh.

That's what I was saying before the multi threading doesn't really make a difference in games, if you do video editing it will power through it though!

if you have a Z68 board you can use the integrated GFX + Quick Sync, think it is limited to a particular program or something for encoding.

http://3dmark.com/3dm11/805476?show_ads=true&page=%2F3dm11%2F805476%3Fkey%3Dwf5kxcDcHeZrKCn4rTeQkPycqmLbBh

P6383, physics test really boned me, think it would go up a fair bit when I get around to fitting an aftermarket cooler and cranking it up some!

wow help me figure this out

you have 2x gfx card with physic processor on board and only scored Physics Score 5609

and i have 1x ATi no physics and scored Physics Score 9245

i know it accounts for little but scored over 400 in the CSS stress test

oh our >>comparison results<<

it was a while ago; could give it a go again with updated drivers, but AFAIK, the physics test, at least in the demo version is a CPU test, not PhysX. Would explain the huge discrepancy between the score you got and the score I got.

Wow, I gotta get me a second GFX card :)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Very decent bit of kit. Definitely black it out I reckon.  
    • Because people who want that are buying euros. The people with the money to buy the aftermarket heads and blocks aren’t interested in efficiency or making -7 power, they’re making well over 1,000hp and pretty much only drive them at full throttle  best way to way make money is know your customer base and what they want and don’t spend money making things they don’t want. 
    • It's not, but it does feel like a bit of a missed opportunity regardless. For example, what if the cylinder head was redesigned to fit a GDI fuel system? It's worth like two full points of compression ratio when looking at modern GDI turbo vs PFI turbo. I'm pretty reliably surprised at how much less turbo it takes to make similar power out of a modern engine vs something like an RB26. Something with roughly the same dimensions as a -7 on an S55 is making absolutely silly power numbers compared to an RB26. I know there's a ton of power loss from things like high tension rings, high viscosity oil, clutch fan, AWD standby loss, etc but it's something like 700 whp in an F80 M3 vs 400 whp in an R33 GTR. The stock TF035HL4W turbos in an F80 M3 are really rather dinky little things and that's enough to get 400 whp at 18 psi. This just seems unwise no? I thought the general approach is if you aren't knock limited the MFB50 should be held constant through the RPM range. So more timing with RPM, but less timing with more cylinder filling. A VE-based table should accordingly inverse the VE curve of the engine.
    • I've seen tunes from big name workshops with cars making in excess of 700kW and one thing that stood out to me, is that noone is bothering with torque management. Everyone is throwing in as much timing as the motor can take for a pull. Sure that yields pretty numbers on a dyno, but it's not keeping these motors together for more than a few squirts down the straight without blowing coolant or head gaskets. If tuners, paid a bit more attention and took timing out in the mid range, managed boost a bit better, you'll probably see less motors grenading. Not to name names, or anything like that, but I've seen a tune, from a pretty wild GT-R from a big name tuner and I was but perplexed on the amount of timing jammed into it. You would have expected a quite a bit less timing at peak torque versus near the limiter, but there was literally 3 degrees of difference. Sure you want to make as much as possible throughout the RPM range, but why? At the expense of blowing motors? Anyhow I think we've gone off topic enough once again lol.
    • Because that’s not what any of them are building these heads or blocks for. It’s to hold over over 1000hp at the wheels without breaking and none of that stuff is required to make power 
×
×
  • Create New...