P4 - 2.4C, 2.6C, 2.8C, 3.0C, 3.2C - where's the sweet spot

[borgmang]

I'm going to build my first PC, and wanted to know which P4 CPU gets the most distance. If anybody knows, please let me know how fast you can go/OC each of these CPU's w/o watercooling.

Also, should I buy a heatsink, and if so, which one? Should I use the stock fans in the coolermaster case, or buy different fans?

Here's the rig I'm going to buy soon - please feel free to let me know if any of you would change anything.

Motherboard: ASUS P4C800-E Deluxe
Processor: Pentium 4 - 2.4, 2.6, 2.8, or 3.0, 3.2C - Retail?
Case: Cooler Master Model# ATC-201B-BXT
Power Supply: Antec True480 with Blue LED Fan
RAM: Corsair TWINX1024-3700PT 1GB DDR466 XMS3700 Dual-Channel Memory w/Platinum Heat Spreader.
HD: WD Raptor x2 - Raid 0, 1 WD 250GB SE
DVD-RW: Sony DRU510A
CD-RW: Lite-on 52x32x52 or Plexwriter
Video Card: ATI AIW 9800?, ATI 9800 Pro 128?, or ATI 9800 Pro 256
Sound Card: Sound Blaster Audigy 2 Platinum

Thanks

 

[Corporate Thug]

it seems that the 2.6C is the best choice as the 2.4 stresses the ram/system to much and the 2.8 and above is too pricey
you want a nice HSF like a slk900
the coolermaster case fans are actually very good, i would stick with them

mobo: good choice, IS7 is my personal favorite
cpu: 2.6
case: niiiiiice
psu: overkill, you can cut back a little. 420 true power is you need to save some money
RAM: twinX is no different than regular xms, get regular xms pc3500 or buffalo pc3700 @ newegg for $99/ 512 stick
HD: nice
dvd-rw: nice
Cd-rw: nice
video: unless you do some really graphic intensive stuff (CAD), get the 128 9800 pro and save yourself a lot of money. there is virtually no difference between the 256 and 128 in gaming performance
sound: cool, personally i would go w/ something cheaper (TBSC, regular audigy 2)

hope this helps, good luck

 

[oldfart]

Yup. 2.6C. 2.4C multiplier is a little too low. The FSB and ram requirements are too high for a good overclock.

Motherboard: I like the Abit IC7
Processor: Pentium 4 - 2.6C
Case: Cooler Master Model# ATC-201B-BXT
Power Supply: Overkill, but OK. I run a 2.6C @ 3.34 with a True330
RAM: That Corsair "3700" with the slow timings is not worth the $$. Get two sticks of 3500.
HD: Good
DVD-RW: Sony DRU510A
CD-RW: Since you have a DVD-RW already, get a DVD as drive 2. Better for DVD ripping
Video Card: You only need AIW if you are using the multimedia stuff. I'd get the 9800P 128 Meg
Sound Card: I'm not a Creative Labs fan, but it should be fine.

 

[sman789]

People are hitting 300FSB with the 2.4C stable....i think i saw one on air...

*not saying the 2.6C can't but i haven't seen it*

 

[oldfart]

Originally posted by: sman789
People are hitting 300FSB with the 2.4C stable....i think i saw one on air...

*not saying the 2.6C can't but i haven't seen it*

Many (most if not all) mobos have stability issues at that kind of FSB speed.

 

[Slogun]

If I may ask, where are you buying your RAM and what sort of price does it go for?

 

[Krutoy]

Originally posted by: Slogun
If I may ask, where are you buying your RAM and what sort of price does it go for?

If you do a search on froogle, there's 2 merchants selling these for ~$360

 

[borgmang]

Sounds like everybody agrees that the 2.6C is the way to go. How about the heatsink? So far only one comment from shady06 recomendining the slk900. Would love to have some more feedback on the heatsink.

I would also like some more feedback on memory - Should I get the 3700, 3500 or 3200 twin or regular XMS. Any advantages either way? I heard the TwinXms pairs are the way to go. Also, which is better - silver or black PT heat spreaders?


Slogan,

I was planing on purchasing the Corsair TwinX XMS memory from either New egg or Googlegear their prices are $328 and $328 for the XMS series.

shady06 recomends "twinX is no different than regular xms, get regular xms pc3500 or buffalo pc3700 @ newegg for $99/ 512 stick".

Thanks in advance to all.

 

[tallman45]

I went with the 2.6C and reached 3.2 with with the stock hs/fan. Put any extra $$ into extra memory first (1gb) or additional fast drives because at 3.2ghz there are plenty of other bottlenecks to work on.

 

[AnImuS]

ya get the 2.6C

 

[AirGibson]

Ugh. Paying $220 for a CPU is something I could never recommend.

Based on everything I've seen posted by others, the 2.4c is an incredibly good overclocker. If you get quality memory / mobo, you'll probably have a field day O/Cing it. Plus you'll come out about $45 cheaper.

But if that extra $45 means nothing, then go for the 2.6c. You're basically paying 25% more for a pretty small amount of *possible* improvement. ($170 versus $215 from pricewatch)

 

[m1ke101]

wow I was considering switching to intel but those cpu prices scare me. $170 for a cpu? yikes. I guess I can't justify paying that much of a premium when my $50 1700+ does 2.4ghz. But I did build a system for a friend and I got him a 2.8c, oc's very well. But 2.4 or 2.6c should be your best bet.

 

[borgmang]

Originally posted by: borgmang
Sounds like everybody agrees that the 2.6C is the way to go. How about the heatsink? So far only one comment from shady06 recomendining the slk900. Would love to have some more feedback on the heatsink.

I would also like some more feedback on memory - Should I get the 3700, 3500 or 3200 twin or regular XMS. Any advantages either way? I heard the TwinXms pairs are the way to go. Also, which is better - silver or black PT heat spreaders?


Slogan,

I was planing on purchasing the Corsair TwinX XMS memory from either New egg or Googlegear their prices are $328 and $328 for the XMS series.

shady06 recomends "twinX is no different than regular xms, get regular xms pc3500 or buffalo pc3700 @ newegg for $99/ 512 stick".

Thanks in advance to all.

Bump

 

[Yourself]

Another vote for the 2.6c...my 2.6c is humming along at 3575(13*275) at 1.62v


Self

 

[Slogun]

Originally posted by: Yourself
Another vote for the 2.6c...my 2.6c is humming along at 3575(13*275) at 1.62v


Self

holymoly.

 

[gramboh]

TwinX3700 is just XMS 3500 "overclocked" with relaxed timings.

XMS 3500 = 2-3-3-7 @ DDR 434

TwinX3700 = 3-4-4-8 @ DDR 466

If you are getting a 2.6C you will probably be using the 5:4 divider and going for around 3.4GHz (mine only makes it to around 3.3, having stability issues) so you will actually only be running the RAM around DDR 400-410 with fast timings, the DDR 434 + would be more useful with a 2.4C since you will hit higher memory speeds. Personally, I think with the 2.4 there is a risk you will get a CPU that will only do 3000-3200 (haha only, still very fast) yes, most make it to 3300+ according to what I've read but some don't.

You can save money by getting a 2.6C and Corsair PC3200LL or XMS 3500 (again, I'm pretty sure the TwinX LL, 3200LL, XMS 3500 and TwinX3700 are all the same chips with different timings and tested at different speeds).

For sure get the SLK-900U, it's awesome with P4. My P4 2.6 runs around 27 idle 40 max 100% load (after 10 hours of 100% CPU/memory/video usage) at stock voltage on a P4P800 (1.5v bios, reported between 1.5 and 1.54 in MBM).

 

[acemcmac]

it sure as heck isnt the 2.8c, i'll vouch for that... i havent had much success past 215! BLECH. Stupid oem proc....

 

[THUGSROOK]

the actual "sweet spot" is around 215fsb 1:1 all the bells and whistles on.

which chip to use?
none of the above unfortunately

PastorJay's test results

 

[Slogun]

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
the actual "sweet spot" is around 215fsb 1:1 all the bells and whistles on.

which chip to use?
none of the above unfortunately

PastorJay's test results

eh?

 

[THUGSROOK]

the "system" runs fastest @ 215fsb 1:1

but youre not gonna find a OCing chip to match that fsb unless its a very good B chips or an ES.

its very unfortunate but the more expensive 2.8 3.0 3.2 chips will give you the best "performance".
the 2.4 overclocks too far, the 2.6 is prolly the best budget chip.

800fsb overclocking is big mismatch right now.
why do you think im still running cheaper 533B chip systems?

 

[oldfart]

Most people seem to be able to limp along somehow with a 2.4 or 2.6C running 3.3 - 3.5 GHz. The "big mismatch" is neither.

 

[THUGSROOK]

sorry oldfart ~ i wont settle for just overclocking the cpu and not the memory.

just doesnt seem right

 

[oldfart]

Thugs, You worry too much about what "seems right" instead of what is reality. There are PLENTY of people running screaming fast systems based on 2.4C - 2.6C CPU's. Your notion that running a 5:4 ratio somehow makes some sort of inferior setup is plain hogwash. The same could be said of a system based on a "B" CPU that doesn't have Hyperthreading and has a sub 200 MHz FSB. Why would anyone run an outdated system such as that? (loaded question)

To tell someone

which chip to use?
none of the above unfortunately

is simply ridiculous.

You REALLY dont think you can get adequate performance out of such a setup? People who own them have proven otherwise.

 

[THUGSROOK]

oldfart ~ this thread is asking about the sweet spot. 5:4 isnt the sweet spot, its a comprimise.

you know full well that if you could purchase ram to match your current fsb it will be alot faster then it is now.
cant get better ram? then maybe you shouldnt have bought such a low multiplier?
like i said ~ its unfortunate that the best (higher) multipliers are in the expensive chips.

im still not buying a 800fsb chip ~ actually i just bought another tray 2.4B to play with

 

[oldfart]

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
oldfart ~ this thread is asking about the sweet spot. 5:4 isnt the sweet spot, its a comprimise.

A very small one. Nowhere near what you exaggerate it to be. The sweet spot is the best bang and performance for the $$. That is the 2.6C, no doubt. A CPU/ram combo that cost double and is maybe 5 or 10 % faster is certanily not it.

you know full well that if you could purchase ram to match your current fsb it will be alot faster then it is now.

I like the way you recommend components that dont exist. If I could (I cant) buy ram to match my FSB Speed, I might get a WHOPPING 2% performance increase!!!. Now thats worth wasting a few hundred $$ on right?

cant get better ram? then maybe you shouldnt have bought such a low multiplier?

What ever happened to overclocking?
Remember buying the low priced CPU and clocking it up to the high priced one? Now the idea is buy the most expensive CPU???
PUHLEEEASE give me a break.
The people out there recommending a 3.0c and PC3700 setup are way off and doing forum readers a disservice recommending them. You can get 95% of the performance for 50% of the price going with a 2.4C or 2.6c and some reasonably priced ram.

like i said ~ its unfortunate that the best (higher) multipliers are in the expensive chips.

It is also reality. It also the way it has always been. That is exactly why people buy 2.4 and 2.6Cs. They are smart enough not to throw away $$ on the high multiplier CPUs.

im still not buying a 800fsb chip ~ actually i just bought another tray 2.4B to play with

Good luck with it.