Originally posted by: Viditor
There are still a few problems there...
1. They used an Engineering Sample E1600 chip from Intel with an unlocked multiplier...not something you can actually buy.
2. it was compared to a stock 5200+, not an overclocked 5600+...
Please refer to n7's post, we share the same opinion on this matter.
Originally posted by: rchiu
Well, to go from 1.6ghz to 3.0+ghz is a lot of OC. You'd have to spend $$ on cooling that's as much, if not more then the CPU itself. Not to mention quality memory and mobo that will allow high fsb. For AMD, going from 2.6 to ~3.0 is not that much OC, and will probably not gonna need as much cooling or quality memory and mobo. I have an x2 @ ~2.8 and a E2200 @3ghz and the only difference I see is the benchmark numbers. It hardly make any difference in day to day usage.
Um, you don't need a $55 HSF to get an E1200 to 3GHz, just because its a big overclock % wise doesn't mean it needs outrageous cooling to hit such speeds. The E1200 at stock would be a very cool running chip anyway, and running it at 3GHz at or slightly above default voltage will only get it to run at about 50 - 60W under load, even the stock Intel HSF can handle that. Look, when a chip does close to a 100% overclock at stock volts, you can unofficially call that chip
factory underclocked. Most Core 2 based CPUs have no difficulty hitting 3GHz, even the low end ones, and the E1200 would be no different.
Quality memory and mobo? Lets do the maths here, an E1200 has an 8x multiplier, which means for 3.2GHz you need a 400MHz FSB and DDR2-800 RAM - this is not a very high FSB, basically any budget P35 board can do 400FSB, and DDR2-800 RAM is cheap as chips nowadays.
As for the difference between an E2200 @ 3GHz and an X2 @ 2.8GHz, of course it depends entirely on what you consider 'day to day usage'. Not everything is CPU bound, but in things that are, the E2200 would be significantly faster.