• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

2.4C or 2.C???

T

TorinoGT24

Senior member
Hey all,

I am in the market for either of these, and I wish to hit 3ghz overclocking. Which would be best? Well, I know which one would be best, but which one would be the best value? Is it worth the extra 40 bucks for the 2.6? Thanks guys!

-Collin-
 
You will hit 3ghz easily with the 2.4c, probably get it up to 3.2 without much effort too. Pretty much everyone will agree that the 2.4c is one of the best bang for the buck processors
 
But, just to throw a curveball at ya...2.6Cs have the possability to hit 3.4-3.5 (there are a many people here on AT that have done it on air cooling, sometimes on stock cooling). A 2.6 should easily give you 3.0, but I think the possibility to hit 3.4-3.5 is awesome 😀 I'm looking to upgrade from my 2.4C running at 3.0GHz to a 2.6C in hopes of achieving the same speed.
 
I've read a lot of posts where people recommend the 2.6C over the 2.4C as it will give you a lot more overclocking headroom.

I'm an o'clocking novice and got some good results with my 2.6C.
 
the 2.6 has a higher multiplyer so you don't have to clock as far on the mobo FSB to get a good speed increase. Let me explain.

if your 2.6 runs 200Mhz FSb at 13x multiplyer and you go to 250Mhz FSB you run 3.2Ghz and you can run a memory ratio of 5:4 for DDR400 operation

if your 2.4 runs 12x multiplyer at 200Mhz FSb and you go to 250Mhz FSB you run 3.0Ghz at DDR400 (assuming 5:4 memory ratio)

now to get 3.0Ghz with 2.6 you run around 230Mhz FSB which is lower overclock for your memory and for your motherboard and lower for your CPU. Acheive same speed without pushing the equipment as far.


For your info I am running right now a 260Mhz FSb with a Thermalright HSF with my 2.6 which means my CPU is running 3.38Ghz. With asus's mobo sometimes it reports 3.4
 
Man, I guess it really comes down to how bad I want the 2.6. I have a feeling if I spend the money now, I will be happier later. Thanks guys.
-Collin-
 
Originally posted by: TorinoGT24
Man, I guess it really comes down to how bad I want the 2.6. I have a feeling if I spend the money now, I will be happier later. Thanks guys.
-Collin-
Click to expand...

Trust me, you will 😀
 
Originally posted by: MangoTBG
Originally posted by: TorinoGT24
Man, I guess it really comes down to how bad I want the 2.6. I have a feeling if I spend the money now, I will be happier later. Thanks guys.
-Collin-
Click to expand...

Trust me, you will 😀
Click to expand...

I agree, i have a 2.4 c and will not do 3.0 in a stable environment. The 2.6c does 3.2 easily, will do 3.5 or so, but not stable.
 
You have a better chance of getting a good o/c with the 2.4 over the 2.6. The 2.6 will o/c further when it's a good o/c'er, but I've seen quite a few 2.6's that wouldn't o/c hardly at all on the hands of knowledgable people.
 
Originally posted by: Slammy1
You have a better chance of getting a good o/c with the 2.4 over the 2.6. The 2.6 will o/c further when it's a good o/c'er, but I've seen quite a few 2.6's that wouldn't o/c hardly at all on the hands of knowledgable people.
Click to expand...

That goes for saying with any processor. I know of one or two 1700+ JIUHBs (they were THE overclocking champs before the 2100+, 2400+ and 2500+) that for some reason wouldn't overclock well.


"Overclocking is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get"
 
The average 2.4C and 2.6C will top out somewhere in the 3.2 to 3.5GHz range. The main advantage of the 2.6C is that for any given clock speed you want to run at, the FSB will be lower, giving you a better chance at running 1:1 ratio and/or with tighter memory timings.

Example, say you are looking to run at 3.4GHz (provided you have a decent chip, this should be a possibility with good air cooling and slightly upped VCore). With the 2.4C you'd need an FSB of 283MHz, which means you'll almost definitely have to run at 3:2 ratio (unless you have PC4000), putting your RAM at a mere 183MHz. On the other hand, the 2.6C would require an FSB of only 261MHz, meaning you'd get to run at 5:4 ratio, giving you a RAM speed of 209MHz. Not to mention that you'd be stressing your board less with the lower FSB.

Whether those advantages are worth an extra $40 or so is up to you. I went for the 2.4C and am 110% satisfied running rock stable at 3.12GHz (260MHz FSB / 5:4 ratio) considering the chip was $170! Sure, if I had chosen the 2.6C and had received a halfway decent chip, I'd be running at 3.38GHz with these same settings, but I don't regret saving the $50... it's still plenty fast for anything I can throw at it and probably will be for at least a year or so.
 
Originally posted by: brettjrob
The average 2.4C and 2.6C will top out somewhere in the 3.2 to 3.5GHz range. The main advantage of the 2.6C is that for any given clock speed you want to run at, the FSB will be lower, giving you a better chance at running 1:1 ratio and/or with tighter memory timings.

Example, say you are looking to run at 3.4GHz (provided you have a decent chip, this should be a possibility with good air cooling and slightly upped VCore). With the 2.4C you'd need an FSB of 283MHz, which means you'll almost definitely have to run at 3:2 ratio (unless you have PC4000), putting your RAM at a mere 183MHz. On the other hand, the 2.6C would require an FSB of only 261MHz, meaning you'd get to run at 5:4 ratio, giving you a RAM speed of 209MHz. Not to mention that you'd be stressing your board less with the lower FSB.

Whether those advantages are worth an extra $40 or so is up to you. I went for the 2.4C and am 110% satisfied running rock stable at 3.12GHz (260MHz FSB / 5:4 ratio) considering the chip was $170! Sure, if I had chosen the 2.6C and had received a halfway decent chip, I'd be running at 3.38GHz with these same settings, but I don't regret saving the $50... it's still plenty fast for anything I can throw at it and probably will be for at least a year or so.
Click to expand...

yes, however I find that having every ounce of performance you can get (mhz wise) is worth it if you can afford it. That extra bit of memory performance will do wonders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top