• 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.

2.6c or 2.8c

B

bigskank

Junior Member
I'm planning on buying an Abit IC7 with 1GB (2x512) of Corsair PC3700. With stock cooling, would I be able to generally achieve better overall performance from overclocking a 2.6c or 2.8c? I'm less concerned with the percentage increase I can get in clock speed as I am with the overall speed.
 
2.8C SL6Z5 from ZipZoomFly...

Why?

The 2.8C isn't that much more expensive than the 2.6C and if you get a bad 2.8C that will be better than a bad 2.6c

granted, the difference between 3.3-3.5ghz isn't significant, but if money isn't a problem go with the 2.8C
 
Check the databast at overclockers.com.

The 2.6 and 2.8 are pretty similar and and any single CPU that o/c's well is determined by the "luck of the draw".

A 2.8 GUARANTEES it will perform at 2.8Ghz stably . . . I usually go for the highest clocked chip at the lowest price (especially when you go to sell it to a non-o/c'er). I just bought an abit IC7g ($119) and a 2.80c last week at NewEgg for $183 (it's on sale today for $182) the 2.6 is only a few bucks less. Mushkin PC3500 (2x256) seems to be decent RAM for cheap ($61 ea).

BTW, I am pleased with my O/C so far - 3.12Ghz and I am just STARTing to play with the timings and ratios.
 
both chips will most likely take him into the 5:4 mem ratio zone.
in that case id suggest maxing out your mem on the 5:4 ratio with the 2.6c @ at least 250fsb.

🙂
 
Why exactly are you more interested in clock speed than in performance?
rolleye.gif
A 2.6C, at the same speed, will outperform a 2.8C, because it will have a higher fsb, which gives more performance than clockspeed. A 2.4C at 3.5mhz will make a 2.8C at 3.5mhz look slow, in real-life applications.
 
My concern is that I have heard the 2.6c is quite hard to get pushed up to 3.5ghz, and the 2.8c was *very* luck of the draw. I am concerned w/ overall performance (which is what i should've originally said). Just trying to figure out which would be best giving the components i'm already buying.
 
As Myocardia wrote FSB is king in most applications, most notably Photoshop. The risk that you take is that there is no definate OC that a certain CPU can attain, it is kind of the luck of the draw to get one that is a superstar.
 
I have both chips and the 2.8 seems better at 3.5 than the 2.6 at 3.5 . Also there was less fiddling to get the 2.8 up there and I can say its stable at that speed. The 2.6 however is not 100% stable at that speed. Now comparing the 2 at same speed the 2.8 actually does better ( but the stability may be the flaw here) in benching that I have done.

Take from that what you will but it's only my experience with what I have.
 
im running the 2.6c @ 3.2 with stock cooling and havent had one blip at all. awesome chip by my standards! you really cant go wrong either way!
 
After some deliberation, I settled on the 2.8c. Ordered from newegg today. thanks for the input!

*fingers crossed*
 
hehe~
believe me when i tell that i have been trying! 😉
step 1 is to find a C chip im happy with..... not too easy concidering im already @ 3.4ghz on default voltage.

😀
 
Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
hehe~
believe me when i tell that i have been trying! 😉
step 1 is to find a C chip im happy with..... not too easy concidering im already @ 3.4ghz on default voltage.

😀
Click to expand...

If anybody can do it, you can !! 🙂 😛😉:beer:😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top