2.4 is Intel's sweet number! Prescott too!

[stardust]

2.4A Prescott @ 3.7ghz

All you old school OC guru's might wanna check this out...

someone alert THUGSROOK about this!

 

[THUGSROOK]

hehe

i got my 2.4a Prescott upto 3.6ghz, but was hot enough to make toast from bread.
and just like H|OCP mentions, was not completly stable due to heat.
actually there was so much heat that it effected the memory to the point that memory tweaks were not possible.

Alaskans only apply

oh, and BTW: it was slower then a OCed 2.4b (due to lack of memory tweaks)
....i dont reccommend Prescott CPUs for OCers.

 

[stardust]

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
hehe

i got my 2.4a Prescott upto 3.6ghz, but was hot enough to make toast from bread.
and just like H|OCP mentions, was not completly stable due to heat.
actually there was so much heat that it effected the memory to the point that memory tweaks were not possible.

Alaskans only apply

oh, and BTW: it was slower then a OCed 2.4b (due to lack of memory tweaks)
....i dont reccommend Prescott CPUs for OCers.

Wow, did you try water cooling? How did u get your hands on a 2.4A prescott?
Ok, sorry I guess I was a step late, but 2.4 to 3.5-3.7 is an amazing overclock.
Well I supposed the 800FSB 2.4C is what I would go for.. heat issue for the prescott is THAT bad huh?

 

[THUGSROOK]

Originally posted by: stardust
...heat issue for the prescott is THAT bad huh?

yep ~ water coolers and phase change only apply.

 

[Shimmishim]

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK

Originally posted by: stardust
...heat issue for the prescott is THAT bad huh?

yep ~ water coolers and phase change only apply.

phasechange... yummy...

 

[oldfart]

It is also lacking Hyperthreading, runs hotter and is slower clock for clock than NW. No thanks.

 

[Lyfer]

Originally posted by: oldfart
It is also lacking Hyperthreading, runs hotter and is slower clock for clock than NW. No thanks.

Also YMMV. I have really bad luck when getting a good stepping, I'll prolly get a dud if I fork up the cash to build a new Intel rig.

 

[slag]

Funny, I had ZERO problems overclocking a 2.8e to 3.5 ghz.

You sure you guys aren't doing something wrong?

Heat isnt a problem if you have decent air circulation. Its not really about keeping the processor super cold as keeping everything around it cold as well.

 

[MichaelZ]

dude, it's a 2.4 prescott not a 2.8

 

[Soulkeeper]

i can get my 2.8e to almost 3.5ghz fully stable
but temps get up past 70C and i just don't feel comfortable
the temps limit me from going too far

i'm getting me a dangerden waterblock for this sucker

 

[gsellis]

Check that last few pages of the official ASUS PC-DL page in Motherboards at 2CPU. How about Dual Xeon 2.4's (533) running at 3.5 (and been to 3.6). Today will be a day where that may be the old mark. P4Northwood found more voltage last night and will be testing it today. And those are aircooled!

Yep, 2.4 is Intel's sweet spot.

 

[hytek369]

Originally posted by: oldfart
It is also lacking Hyperthreading, runs hotter and is slower clock for clock than NW. No thanks.

i know, why did intel do that?

 

[stardust]

Originally posted by: hytek369

Originally posted by: oldfart
It is also lacking Hyperthreading, runs hotter and is slower clock for clock than NW. No thanks.

i know, why did intel do that?

economical reasons, they tried keeping the price of the chip under $150

 

[Soulkeeper]

it's prob gonna be the next celeron
just a rebadged reworked celeron idea

 

[Budman]

Originally posted by: stardust

Originally posted by: hytek369

Originally posted by: oldfart
It is also lacking Hyperthreading, runs hotter and is slower clock for clock than NW. No thanks.

i know, why did intel do that?

economical reasons, they tried keeping the price of the chip under $150

it's got nothing to do with it,HT has been on p4 since northwood days,it just wasnt enabled,it doesnt cost more to produce a HT chip because HT is on the chip to begin with.

they just disabled it so it wouldnt be as fast as the higher priced HT enabled chips.

 

[stardust]

Originally posted by: Budman

Originally posted by: stardust

Originally posted by: hytek369

Originally posted by: oldfart
It is also lacking Hyperthreading, runs hotter and is slower clock for clock than NW. No thanks.

i know, why did intel do that?

economical reasons, they tried keeping the price of the chip under $150

it's got nothing to do with it,HT has been on p4 since northwood days,it just wasnt enabled,it doesnt cost more to produce a HT chip because HT is on the chip to begin with.

they just disabled it so it wouldnt be as fast as the higher priced HT enabled chips.

Hmm, are you sure they didn't take the prescott chips that were supposed to have HT, but failed testing so they disabled it and rebadged it as the 2.4a and the 2.8a? that would be economical..

 

[First]

I'm totally confused why Kyle is hyping the 2.4A. It runs hotter, slower and less stable unless you're using water or better. If you want overclocking on the cheap go 2500+M. If you want overclocking for a reasonable price, go 2.8C.

Or, just ask Thugs.

 

[smahoney]

I agree - I have my 2.8C running at 3.6 right now with a 1:1 mem divider at 257MHz FSB. Even a 5:4 would still be perfect for PC3200 memory. Runs pretty cool at 1.55 volts. 2.4 might seem nice, but how many boards can go to 250 vs. the number that can go to 275+ and how much more do they cost? Any processor savings will be eaten up by the more expensive motherboard you will need to run at such high FSB settings - not too mention the stress on the motherboards available today to run those toaster er prescott chips

 

[slag]

Originally posted by: i82lazyboy
dude, it's a 2.4 prescott not a 2.8

dude, its an overclocked prescott.. thats the argument, not the base speed..

lol

 

[Jeff7181]

A P4 without Hyper-Threading is like going to a strip club with no strippers... what's the point?

 

[Echo3]

Well, I am not sure that is true yet! Hyperthreading is a cool feature, But how the O/S and applications work together is not necessarily quite there per se...

The o/s supports it, but other than that, I am not sure - I have a P4 2.4B OC'd to 3.0ghz and it's very fast -

Anyway there was a German website that did I pretty thorough job testing Hyperthreading - and the only yield that was seen as benefical was when it came to video streaming over the net... 200FSB X4 (quad pumped as it were) - Nice but - as AMD as showed us, "It's not how fast you go, but how to go fast" ( I think I'll put that as part of my forum signature).... the way the athlons execute instructions is both, efficient and better, and I mean way better - Now I am just rambling -

I totally forgot what this thread was about.... Oh yeah the last post I am responding to - If you have a P4 without HT then yada, yada -

Hyperthreading???? I'll stick with my P4B - for a long time - And after that - AMD - Then a Mac - Oh no - Oh yes!!!

c ya

 

[Jeff7181]

Echo3... you might want to check out all the testing Duvie has done on Hyper-Threading. You will learn a lot.

 

[stardust]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
I'm totally confused why Kyle is hyping the 2.4A. It runs hotter, slower and less stable unless you're using water or better. If you want overclocking on the cheap go 2500+M. If you want overclocking for a reasonable price, go 2.8C.

Or, just ask Thugs.

well now that doesn't exclude us users with water cooling kits

Yeah, 2.8C is a great processor. Personally i think 2.6C is the best..but some people like the old 133x4 fsb and seeing that 2.4A prescott go 3.7ghz is pretty amazing. (My 2.6C achieved a max of 3.5ghz with 0.1 Vcore voltage increase.)