Because that water cooling system easily carries on to the next $60 cpu and the next.... Plus my whole water setup was about $100.
Edit: you can get a Zigmatek HDT-S1283 for $32 and it's in the top 5 best hsf out there.
another edit: Why would an OCer buy an e5400 over an e5200?
lol i wasnt an overclocker back then (i was like 5 or 6), but i do remember my pencil modded socket A 775mhz Spitfire core Duron which i unlocked to a full athlon, back in 2000 when i got my first computer. my step-dad bought it for me, and he told me that if i could figure out how to unlock the CPU by hand he would give me his RIVA TNT2. needless to say i figured it out thanks to some reading here on anandtech, and i enjoyed that nice little modded system up until the board got fried and i got a pentium 4 2.8GHz Northwood. never got around to modding that one, but i still have it. the Abit IS7 i had in it just died a couple weeks ago when i was letting a buddy borrow it lol.
$100 is more reasonable for water cooling, but you can still only use it for the socket types it was designed for. When a new socket comes out and the mounting bracket is different, tough luck.
One might buy the 5400 because it has a higher multiplier. It will hit much higher speeds before you need to worry about motherboard crapping out at that 20-30% limit I've seen on every motherboard I've ever purchased (probably because I never replace the northbridge fan with something better).
Another issue is that "good" processors often have things you can't get by simply overclocking a slower processor. This could be something like hyperthreading on the i7 but not on the cheaper core 2 quads. Another common one is L2 cache - expensive chips have it and cheap ones don't. More recently, this also extends into the shear number of cores the processor has. If I have $100 to spend on a processor, is it better to buy a Phenom X4 9600 with stock cooling or to get a Kuma X2 7750 with a really good heatsink? Sure the X2 will overclock way higher and get much much better performance from single and double threaded applications, but it will fall flat on its face when you throw anything at it that can use 4 threads, or if you try running more than 1 program at a time.
It seems like a lot of good overclocking processors are bought on the assumption that you can't overclock the more expensive ones. My E6600 was a top of the line processor when I got it and it's currently overclocked 25% on stock cooling (bottlenecked by the motherboard), so let's use that 25% as a baseline expected overclock. If you buy a $70 E5200 with a $32 cooler, do you expect it to overclock to be faster than the processor that is one step up, overclocked by 25%? In this case that would be the E7xxx line. I would guess that no it probably won't, but that's my bias.
Another common one is the E8400 for $168 on Newegg. It's so popular that it has over 2300 comments and it has a customer choice award. If you threw on a $32 cooler to bring the price up to $200, do you think that would be faster than a 20% overclocked Q8300 for $190? Again, I'm not sure. I would guess the quad core is better, but I could be wrong.
Nope, not even close. I had TWO celeron 300A in dual slot mobo and OC'ed to 466. Wake me up when I can do that with i7.
- Aug 10, 2005
- 17,768
- 485
- 126
:laugh:
There are dual socket boards that allow o/c and the new Nehalem Xeons overclock like mad. Again think ratio. Again think how expensive a 3.2GHz Xeon is and how a 4GHz will blow it away.
Oh and in 1998 choice of OS was extremely limiting your SMP experience. I know, I had a dual Pentium Pro system running NT4.0.
Of course with just a single socket today we enjoy SMP with even entry level operating systems. That's technology for you.
I remember pencil modding the ceramic PGA processors. Then the plastic (XP) ones came out that were a little harder. (but worth bridging XP's into MP's) Window defogger repair kits were frequently out of stock at auto supply houses back in 2002. :laugh:
I was feeling spendy myself at the time and went for the dual-333A's OC'ed to 550MHz each. That was the BP6 wasn't it? I remember I paid a little extra for the 333's because they were pre-tested and "guaranteed" to hit 550MHz...atacom.com IIRC. I loved that BP6, used it for computational chemistry simulations 24x7 for almost 4yrs.
fffblackmage
Platinum Member
- Dec 28, 2007
- 2,548
- 0
- 76
Actually, I did manage to reset the bios. However, it refuses to boot into windows. On the other hand, it runs Linux just fine. Odd much?
Originally posted by: Mwing
my Barton 2500 couldn't make it to 3200 speed
Mine did when I bought DDR 400 memory and just upped the FSB. It was perfectly stable and rock solid and to this day was the easiest over clock I ever had done. I have fond memories of that processor, especially since I bought it for under $100 retail.
IMO, most of Intel's processors have been like this since the Core 2 lineup was introduced. I had NO problems getting my E6600 to 3.2, and it did 3.4 without too much hassle. 3.6 is when you had to start getting creative. My E8400 is very similar.
I actually miss overclocking Athlon 64s. It was such a rewarding feeling when you managed to squeeze that extra 100 MHz out of your chip when none of your friends could. I had (still have, actually, but my girlfriend uses the computer) a socket 939 X2 4200+ that I managed to get up to 2.7 GHz - most people were toping out at 2.5, MAYBE 2.6... I felt like a champ.
I actually miss overclocking Athlon 64s.
It was such a rewarding feeling when you managed to squeeze that extra 100 MHz out of your chip when none of your friends could. I had (still have, actually, but my girlfriend uses the computer) a socket 939 X2 4200+ that I managed to get up to 2.7 GHz - most people were toping out at 2.5, MAYBE 2.6... I felt like a champ.A lot of places marked them up by $25 to $50 because of demand. I bought mine on sale at PC Club for $95 when they usually sold them at around $120.
(I am upset they went out of business. They were the only decent place to buy computer components locally and were very close in price to deals on the web at the time. If someone from Fry's or Microcenter is listening, OKLAHOMA CITY METRO AREA'S ONLY REAL COMPUTER PARTS STORE IS BEST BUY. We have some mom and pop type stores, but the selection and pricing is really horrible.)
2March
Member
- Sep 29, 2001
- 135
- 0
- 0
It not the new 300A because the 300A could only level with intels fastest offering and only in games. The 920 has all the goodies the more expensive standard models have AND beats them by a mile when overclocked.
It's also not the Barton 2500+ because the 2500+ already had a bigger brother at its launch (the 3200+) and while it could level with it could not really beat it, at least not by much.
It could be the Coppermine (600E). It was fully fledged with the same cache and would run a 150 MHz FSB making it run 900MHz in many cases. It ran circles around Intels fastest offering, the 800EB which got it's B from running a 133FSB. and because of it's locked multipleir we suffered the same drawbacks the 920 has searching for MOBO's and RAM that could run 150+ FSB's. But the Coppermine was eventually beaten by the K7 as it was unable to cross the 1GHz barrier with proper yield and was limited to SDR while the Phenom II cannot beat the I7 at this moment.
But the future is uncertain. Who knows...
It's also not the Barton 2500+ because the 2500+ already had a bigger brother at its launch (the 3200+) and while it could level with it could not really beat it, at least not by much.
It could be the Coppermine (600E). It was fully fledged with the same cache and would run a 150 MHz FSB making it run 900MHz in many cases. It ran circles around Intels fastest offering, the 800EB which got it's B from running a 133FSB. and because of it's locked multipleir we suffered the same drawbacks the 920 has searching for MOBO's and RAM that could run 150+ FSB's. But the Coppermine was eventually beaten by the K7 as it was unable to cross the 1GHz barrier with proper yield and was limited to SDR while the Phenom II cannot beat the I7 at this moment.
But the future is uncertain. Who knows...
The e8400 would dominate many benchmarks against the quad. Hell, even a good e5200 @ 3.8-4.0 would. This is especially true for games, but this argument has been done and done. Soon, yes, the quads will take over but not quite yet...
I had a Duron 1.6GHz that I paid something like $45 for. I could get to about 2.4GHz with it. It was the Applebred core or whatever. I finished Divine Divinity and NWN with that chip.
You're missing the whole point of having a faster gaming CPU - to make it so the CPU is not the bottleneck. The CPU bottleneck dictates what your maximum frame rate is at all resolutions, so as long as your CPU can get over 60fps, the CPU is not an issue and you'll only need to worry about your video card. That's the situation we're all shooting for.
If you look at Anandtech's recent gaming benchmarks, you'll notice that quad core does just fine in 1-2 thread games like Fallout, L4D, and Crysis; they are well beyond the magic number of 60fps. As soon as you get to games where CPU is a real issue (aka "new" games), the dual core fails miserably. For Far Cry 2, even the Q6600 is beating the E8500. The dual core is only faster in games where you literally cannot see the difference. For games where you can tell the difference, the quad core will always win. Far Cry 2 is just one example of this. Supreme Commander is another CPU-bound game, and once again, the Q6600 manages to beat the E8600.
As for non-gaming applications, quad core wins.
- Sep 28, 2005
- 21,118
- 3,644
- 126
i still think the A64 was the greatest overclocking chip.
It set new standards on how well a chip should overclock.
Then again the C2D also spoiled the CRAP out of us... hello, getting a E6600 2.4ghz processor to 3.6ghz like a piece of cake.
Shiet.. gillbot has my old X6800 that does 4ghz, and he's scratching his head going WOW, this was possible in 2006?
It set new standards on how well a chip should overclock.
Then again the C2D also spoiled the CRAP out of us... hello, getting a E6600 2.4ghz processor to 3.6ghz like a piece of cake.
Shiet.. gillbot has my old X6800 that does 4ghz, and he's scratching his head going WOW, this was possible in 2006?
- Sep 28, 2005
- 21,118
- 3,644
- 126
dude i really loved this opty...
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p73/aigomorla/3.jpg
the 3ghz wall back then would be like the 4ghz wall of today. (errr 4ghz quadcore not wolfdale, 4ghz on wolfdale = CAKE).
LOL see ruby, ima multi gpu whore, even back then i was running SLI.
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p73/aigomorla/3.jpg
the 3ghz wall back then would be like the 4ghz wall of today. (errr 4ghz quadcore not wolfdale, 4ghz on wolfdale = CAKE).
LOL see ruby, ima multi gpu whore, even back then i was running SLI.
300A was more like a barely over $100 CPU outperforming a $600 CPU.
There's a big difference between a CPU that costs close to $300 and one that's around $100. I've never paid more than $150 for a CPU and I don't intend to start... ever.
It also didn't need a $200+ mobo to do it.
The i7 is nowhere near any class as a 300A.
The 300A of 2009 will most likely be a Core i5, but I really don't think it will really match the value a 300A was able to provide.
Who knew such a light-hearted analogy for recognizing what one can do with an i7 920 would invoke such a defense against attempting such recognition. Like it was really intended to generate a debate.
The OP owned many 300A's, if she wants to conclude in her opinion that a 920 today is like owning a 300A 10yrs ago then who is to stay her opinion is wrong/invalid/misplaced?
She's speaks from firsthand experience, reading this thread and the nitpicking it incited in some folks I really have to wonder if they personally owned either a 300A or an i7 920.
The OP owned many 300A's, if she wants to conclude in her opinion that a 920 today is like owning a 300A 10yrs ago then who is to stay her opinion is wrong/invalid/misplaced?
She's speaks from firsthand experience, reading this thread and the nitpicking it incited in some folks I really have to wonder if they personally owned either a 300A or an i7 920.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter