a $750 4.0 dual core computer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

fusion · Post by **fusion** » 2006-07-21 09:43pm

Yes, that is right everyone!!

Linke

But you have to build it.

InnocentBystander · Post by **InnocentBystander** » 2006-07-21 10:18pm

I didn't see any benchmarks, how does this rig compared to a normal computer with a conroe cpu?

fusion · Post by **fusion** » 2006-07-21 11:29pm

Benchmark

The Jester · Post by **The Jester** » 2006-07-22 10:08am

Tom's Hardware wrote:First and foremost, power consumption increases in direct proportion to clock rate: at 4.1 GHz, a fully-loaded system measures out at 210 W, more than twice the nominal specification for this CPU, which Intel pegs at 95 W.

It might seem cheap until you get your next electric bill...

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2006-07-22 01:53pm

The novelty factor of this system is cool, but once you dig a little deeper, it's not quite as great a deal as it seems. A Core 2 at less than 3 GHz will spank a P4 at 4.1 GHz. The money used on the watercooling system could have been used to buy a faster Core 2 that doesn't need anything more than stock cooling to be cool and quiet, and then you don't have to fool around with overclocking (something that has always caused more headaches than it's solved, in my experience). You also won't need nearly as beefy a power supply for Core 2 as for a monstrously overclocked P4. Once you update the other components with quality stuff that you would actually want in such a system, the price jumps above their $1,200 mark.

So it's not necessarily a bad deal, but it's not as good as they make it sound.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2006-07-22 02:12pm

The Jester wrote:
Tom's Hardware wrote:First and foremost, power consumption increases in direct proportion to clock rate: at 4.1 GHz, a fully-loaded system measures out at 210 W, more than twice the nominal specification for this CPU, which Intel pegs at 95 W.
It might seem cheap until you get your next electric bill...

Assuming you keep your computer for 3 years and leave it on continuously (many people don't, I do),
at 5 cents/kWh , ((.210-.095)kW*(.05$/kWh))*(24*365*3)h=151$ more than if you just stuck to 95 watts. Doesn't sound too bad, but that's disregarding air conditioning costs and cost of time spent tracking down parts and assembling (esp since watercooled), so let's just make a guess and say 225$ over the lifetime of the computer.

EDIT: Seems 5 cents/kWh is a bit optimistic, but meh.