Edzor said:
Also, my processors are Intel® Core? i7-965 Extreme Edition OC'd to 3.8 GHz
Somebody actually bought that overpriced processor? I think I reserve the right to facepalm. The Core i7-920 overclocks nearly as much, yielding roughly comparable performance when overclocked, yet is one-quarter of the price.
The i7-965 has just about the worst price-to-performance ratio of any consumer-level processor. I mean, if you had money to burn, why the hell did you waste your money on that instead of buying a technically superior Intel Xeon or AMD Opteron quad-core? They use Opterons at the supercomputer level, not Core i7s. At least with that, you'd be able to brag about having components outside the realms of the consumer market. All you have right now is an over-expensive consumer processor and and over-elaborate cooling system.
As it stands, you're going to look pretty sheepish when the hexa-core Core i9 processors are released next year, probably at the same price point as your i7-965 was at release. The point also stands, mainly as a point of comparison, that my theoretical 16-core, quad-processor system configuration would outperform your machine at the same price range, even if you would need Linux to take advantage of it. Frankly, I'd rather have the four blades of that system than a top-end PC. At least you'd be able to separate them for LAN party action.
