Newbie question: Which one to OC? 2.4C, 2.6C, or 2.8C?

Duvie

Elite Member
Feb 5, 2001
16,215
0
71
He is likely looking at cost and overall increase....Tha fact is and we deal with all the time most of these chips have a high liklihood to reach same end speed...good yield stuff!!!;)

However with the relative immaturity of the canterwood springdale boards and many not being able to get high fsb the lower multiplier of the 2.4c at 12x really limits one OC...the other fact is that most may not have the ram modules capable of pushing these lower multiplier chips which will need a higher fsb to achieve same end clock speed as other...

For me!!!!

If money did not matter heck yes give me the 2.8c....My ram could do the speeds I need with a 5:4 or 3:2 ratio and not limit me on my oc.....Plus it is always nice t ostart a bit higher and have that default fallback in case something changes...

If money did matter I would go with the 2.6c...slightly beeter multiplier at 13x gives me a bit more room but my ram modules could struggle...

Back to first point check the top guys right now and many have had boards that will be limited in the 266-275 range...now lets look at this...

2.4c @266 = 12x266 or 3192mhz
2.6c @266 = 13x266 or 3458mhz (still very doable from reports I have seen)
2.8c @266 = 14x266 or 3724mhz (less likely but the I have likely taken the mobo out of it)
 

Duvie

Elite Member
Feb 5, 2001
16,215
0
71


unfortunately "value" implies price is a determining factor and therefore does not answer author's thread.

You go ask guys like pastorJay and such what they would have based on fsb speeds they have seen and tested and I bet they pick the 2.6c for the reasons I stated above. Until these boards are routinely and reliably doing 300fsb in reviews I think the 2.4c will likely be limited by mobo and ram limitation before cpu and heat concerns....

That reviewer should have had a 2.4c around to esee if he hit that same speed. He would have needed 290+ fsb and frankly there just isn't many boards doing it....
 

Sid59

Lifer
Sep 2, 2002
11,879
3
81
Originally posted by: Duvie


unfortunately "value" implies price is a determining factor and therefore does not answer author's thread.

You go ask guys like pastorJay and such what they would have based on fsb speeds they have seen and tested and I bet they pick the 2.6c for the reasons I stated above. Until these boards are routinely and reliably doing 300fsb in reviews I think the 2.4c will likely be limited by mobo and ram limitation before cpu and heat concerns....

That reviewer should have had a 2.4c around to esee if he hit that same speed. He would have needed 290+ fsb and frankly there just isn't many boards doing it....

yeah. but it's good to read also. Though it doesn't answer his question directly. It might cover some question about bang for the buck or similar.
 

Tavoc

Member
Nov 30, 2002
144
0
0
Most enthusiasts I have talked to agree that the 2.6C is probably the best OC chip right now. It has to do with the multilplier, and what memory speeds you would likely be running at, and at what speeds Air Cooling becomes ineffective. Since it seems that 3.5ghz or so is about the safe limit with Air Cooling, it isnt really a smart idea to spend money on a chip that has a higher multiplier.

Anyway, in short, most people agree that the 2.6 is the sweet spot.
 

tallman45

Golden Member
May 27, 2003
1,463
0
0
I just picked up a 2.6c for that very same reason. It is only about $40 more than a 2.4c yet $100 less than a 2.8c. That extra $100 can buy you extra performance elswhere, such as additional (or better) ram, a better video card, or a second HDD.

A properly tuned system consists of far more than just a fast cpu, once you reach speeds of 3ghz (easily reached with a 2.6c) you will have choke points elswhere to address.
 

RaymondY

Golden Member
Nov 23, 2000
1,627
0
0
I'm looking at the 2.6c as my next purchase along with either the Gigabyte or Abit 875P mobo.