Quote:
Well, I presumed that you chose it for overclocking because of the 'K' in the processor name. Those are unlocked and have generally been tested to be capable of running at a higher clock rate than it is rated for (although some are better than others). And - it cost you more for that reason. I presume there's another chip model that came off that exact same line that isn't overclock-able and costs less, but is otherwise identical.
There is no 10850 sans-K offering that I've seen. Thus my choosing the unlocked version. The decision was simply a cost/benefit thing. And it seemed like a good ratio, although it still broke my original no-more-than-$300-for-the-CPU budget. Again, though, my macho-wannabe side likes having the overclocking option that I'll likely never use. :o
Quote:
Of course, SAC/SAW and central processors are generally a crap shoot no matter what. But, some multi-core processors are rated fast due to how the cores work together and how many cores there are. Whereas SAC/SAW, as we know, is mostly a single core application. If each of those single cores is relatively slow then you won't get the performance you were hoping for from just the one. Still, in spite of the compatibility vagaries, it has seemed to me that choosing a chip with fast single core performance might well give one a better chance of resulting in better SAC/SAW performance too. And you have chosen one of the top 4 Intel chips so far as single threaded performance is concerned (which impressed me...). It will also have 9 other cores that are mostly going to stand around smoking cigarettes, telling each other dirty jokes, and collecting paychecks. But, that one worker should be pretty good. And, not only that, it can be made to go faster if you go to a little trouble to cool the chip. But, as you surmise, you probably won't need it.
LOL :D I intend to use the other cores, to be sure. And, yeah, SAW should be plenty happy on one of these ten. :cool: