Best bang for the buck CPU?

[betasub]

Originally posted by: JEDI
The E6550 is the cheapest of all the E6xxx chips @$170, and has the highest fsb + L2 cache. :Q What's the catch?

Intel seems to be able to supply a lot of these - that helps keep the price down to shift stock. Only catch I can see for an OCer is the low stock multiplier - you'll need to be able to push your motherboard to a seriously high FSB to get a significant OC from the E6550.

 

[bryanW1995]

yeah, e6550 is great for non-overclockers, terrible for oc'ers. try e4400, 4500, or 2160/2180 for oc'ing.

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
yeah, e6550 is great for non-overclockers, terrible for oc'ers. try e4400, 4500, or 2160/2180 for oc'ing.

why not the e4300?

tomshardware says the e2160 can o/c to 3.2ghz w/little effort, and most people can get it to 3ghz. but the e2160 only has 1meg L2 cache. I would like 2meg L2 cache (to play Supreme commander and it's expansion in Nov 2007).

how high can the e4400 o/c to?

 

[BladeVenom]

Intel's last price cuts put the e4400 at the e4300 price. There's only a $5 price difference at Newegg now.

 

[bryanW1995]

e4400 sounds like the way to go for you. Just watch out for the dark side. Sorry, I couldn't resist...

 

[Avalon]

I really like my E2140. I got it for $66 and paired it up with a $92 Gigabyte P35 DS3L, 2GB of that HP RAM for $30 AR (which came in after only 3-4 weeks), and let it rip. Hit 2.9Ghz on 1.35V, and haven't bothered going higher.

 

[XBoxLPU]

e4300 has a 9 multiplier and the e4400 has a 10 multiplier thus requiring less FSB to OC.(usually OCing on cheaper boards they have a low FSB wall)

 

[toadeater]

Originally posted by: JEDI
Look like i'm getting this Intel mobo because it's a GREAT price:
Foxconn G965 $50

The E6550 is the cheapest of all the E6xxx chips @$170, and has the highest fsb + L2 cache. :Q What's the catch?

How do you plan to OC with that board? If you want to OC, get an ATX board in the $100 price range. Quite a few older quality p965 and 650i boards with a proven track record are now available cheap, don't buy bargain-basement boards if you plan to OC. You can even get some budget P35 boards for around $100. MicroITX is primarily for HTPCs and appliances.

So I'd suggest you spend a little extra on the motherboard, and get an e4x00 for the CPU. That should let you OC to 3.0GHz or so.

 

[zach0624]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
yeah, e6550 is great for non-overclockers, terrible for oc'ers. try e4400, 4500, or 2160/2180 for oc'ing.

ditto

 

[Quino]

mmmm I would not call it a terrible oc at all. It just needs better parts. Mine is running happily at 3.02 gigs with 1.32volts (1.35 is the standard) It does beat faster clocked e6300 or 6400s) because the 4 mb cache. I paired it with an Asus p5b. I have crappy pc 4200 ram and it is running at 430 or 860 bus speed. With faster ram it should go higher since I am overclocking it and undervolting it I got some d9nhl but I will wait until I set up y watercooling to push it as far as possible. Do not discoubnt the e6550 superpi 1m is 17 sec

 

[droolcules]

The e6400 just dropped down in price a bit more. I think that makes it the best of the top end price/performance chips.

Seems it can hit 3.6 ghz or above at times and with better performance per clock than the e4000's or the e2160.

http://www.virtual-hideout.net...rclocking/index2.shtml

The 2160 and the e4300 and e4400 are also all great choices. With an 85 dollar price tag and the capability to hit 3.2 ghz the 2160 must be considered in a price/performance contest. That pretty much puts you right there in par with any of these chips and for 85 bucks, almost enough savings for another gig of ram. So, if you're very literal about the best bang for the buck I think the 2160 would probably win. The more I think about it the more the e2160 wins just because it's significantly cheaper, but performs very well. I just don't know how realistic it is to bet on that massive overlock.

I prefer to bet on the e6400 since it can achieve the same performance at a lower ghz therefore I you don't overclock as much, but what you do overclock gets you almost twice the performance.

An E4300 for instance is a 1.8 ghz chip, take it up to 3.3 and you're performing on par with the e6400 @ 2.88. That's a pretty big ghz difference. The E4300 will overclock 1.5 ghz and still only reach speeds of the e6400's mere .7 ghz overclock.
I feel the likelyhood of getting the .7 ghz overclock is more in my favor than going for the 1.5 ghz overclock and either way you should be able to pull those off with stock coolers. It seems regardless of cooling the e2000 and e4000's aren't going to hit 3.6+ with much reliability, yet the e6400 will.

The only thing that could be better is a e6000 series chip with a higher multiplier in the same price ranges, but that just a matter of time or of course quad core which will be standard soon enough it looks. THANK YOU AMD !!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

But, I'd rather dream of hitting 3.6 with a e6400 for 65 bucks more and a better cooler.

http://www.tomshardware.com/20...m_dual_core/index.html

or even save up and for for a e6750 at 4 ghz

a q6800 for $277 overclocked would also kick ass most likely, it has a multiplier of 9 and it's quad core.

Before Christmas hits you be able to get them for under 200 bucks probably.

If you use programs that take advantage of quad core then it does justify the added cost, or if you are addicted to heavy multitasking or virtualization. However, for games and average use the quad advantage isn't that cost effective yet, though 277 seems like a good price for what amounts to a desktop supercomputer compared to my Athlon 2600+ and considering how often I use it.

Maybe I can hold out for quad, but I bet those dual core prices will be too tempting.

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: droolcules
The e6400 just dropped down in price a bit more. I think that makes it the best of the top end price/performance chips.

Seems it can hit 3.6 ghz or above at times and with better performance per clock than the e4000's or the e2160.

http://www.virtual-hideout.net...rclocking/index2.shtml

The 2160 and the e4300 and e4400 are also all great choices. With an 85 dollar price tag and the capability to hit 3.2 ghz the 2160 must be considered in a price/performance contest. That pretty much puts you right there in par with any of these chips and for 85 bucks, almost enough savings for another gig of ram. So, if you're very literal about the best bang for the buck I think the 2160 would probably win. The more I think about it the more the e2160 wins just because it's significantly cheaper, but performs very well. I just don't know how realistic it is to bet on that massive overlock.

I prefer to bet on the e6400 since it can achieve the same performance at a lower ghz therefore I you don't overclock as much, but what you do overclock gets you almost twice the performance.

An E4300 for instance is a 1.8 ghz chip, take it up to 3.3 and you're performing on par with the e6400 @ 2.88. That's a pretty big ghz difference. The E4300 will overclock 1.5 ghz and still only reach speeds of the e6400's mere .7 ghz overclock.
I feel the likelyhood of getting the .7 ghz overclock is more in my favor than going for the 1.5 ghz overclock and either way you should be able to pull those off with stock coolers. It seems regardless of cooling the e2000 and e4000's aren't going to hit 3.6+ with much reliability, yet the e6400 will.

The only thing that could be better is a e6000 series chip with a higher multiplier in the same price ranges, but that just a matter of time or of course quad core which will be standard soon enough it looks. THANK YOU AMD !!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

But, I'd rather dream of hitting 3.6 with a e6400 for 65 bucks more and a better cooler.

http://www.tomshardware.com/20...m_dual_core/index.html

or even save up and for for a e6750 at 4 ghz

a q6800 for $277 overclocked would also kick ass most likely, it has a multiplier of 9 and it's quad core.

Before Christmas hits you be able to get them for under 200 bucks probably.

If you use programs that take advantage of quad core then it does justify the added cost, or if you are addicted to heavy multitasking or virtualization. However, for games and average use the quad advantage isn't that cost effective yet, though 277 seems like a good price for what amounts to a desktop supercomputer compared to my Athlon 2600+ and considering how often I use it.

Maybe I can hold out for quad, but I bet those dual core prices will be too tempting.

e6400 @ 2.9ghz = e4300 @ 3.3ghz (the 4x00 o/c that high easily?!) > e2140 @ 3.2ghz

aahhh.. so ghz is still king. it's still more about clock speed, and not L2 cache in multi-cores.

so it looks like e4400 @ 3.3ghz is best bang for the buck?

so the foxconn g965 @ $50 doesnt o/c so well???

thus abit p35 for $65 seems to be best bang for the buck o/c mobo?

 

[Quino]

Yes the abit p35 is a good mobo. Also look for the 4 mb cache cpu (6420) instead of the 6400. They perform better with at the same speed as the 2 mb cache parts. Saw a 6420 going for $130 shipped in he forums

 

[jjmIII]

You still havn't bought yet???

Just get an Abit IP35-E and put ANY (new) dual core Intel in it.
The e2140 will work just fine for the price!!
Get out your wallet and buy .

 

[MyLeftNut]

An E4300 @3.3ghz should be the same as an E6400 @3.3ghz. They're both 2mb cache cpu's. The E6400 would need higher memory speed to reach 3.3ghz than the E4300 due to the lower 8x multiplier. E6400 also have better thermal contact between core and IHS due to it being soldered on vs the glued on IHS on the E4300.