retail e2140 $68.62

hans007

Lifer
Feb 1, 2000
20,212
17
81
http://www.geeks.com/details.a...7E2140&cat=CPU&cpc=JAD


you have to use the 10% geeks coupon, "techbargains" is one.


this is about $10-12 (i think thats $12 less than newegg for example and geeks is reliable) less than most places, and is really nice if you dont live in CA and are buying other stuff from geeks since they combine shipping unlike newegg.



this is the 1.6 ghz cpu... i figure for $68.62 and probably overclock to an easy 3ghz+ it would be a pretty good budget chip.


they have a biostar motherboard that oculd probably support if for $45 but thats not really an awesome deal given the frys $99 deals with the 2140...


this would though be a pretty good deal if you bought the frys deal to get a q6600 or something and have that ecs mobo left over
 

Trombe

Senior member
Jun 30, 2007
213
2
81
I'm getting $76 now :(
Mwave appears to have it for $69 though, pennies more for what seems like a more reliable site to purchase from.
 

BIGFOOTPI

Golden Member
Mar 8, 2005
1,029
0
0
"RTFM"
you have to use the 10% geeks coupon, "techbargains" is one.
ps- shipping is extra
 

uhohs

Diamond Member
Oct 29, 2005
7,658
39
91
oo, 69 from mwave. i'm tempted to order this and the abit ip35 from there and do a willcall.
 

videopho

Diamond Member
Apr 8, 2005
4,185
29
91
I'm wondering what AMD x2 cpu would be performance comparable to the e2140?
Anyone?
 

Budarow

Golden Member
Dec 16, 2001
1,917
0
0
Originally posted by: SerpentRoyal
None if you could get the chip north of 3.1GHz.

You're saying a C2D clocked at 3.1 GHz is for the most part faster than ANY AMD X2 CPU available now?

 

tbogstad

Golden Member
Feb 3, 2003
1,564
0
0
if you add ground shipping, the total is about $3.38 less then NEWEGG.

and if you add the same 3days shipping as NEWEGG, the price is actually about $5.00 More than NEWEGG.

so no big deal here.
 

Budarow

Golden Member
Dec 16, 2001
1,917
0
0
Originally posted by: SerpentRoyal
E21x0 @ 3.1GHz is faster than the AMD 6000. Main difference between the E21x0, E4xx0, and E6xx0 is the cache size. To make up for the smaller cache, you'll need to raise the core speed by about 400MHz, depending on application. E6600 @ 2.4GHz ~ E2xx0 @ 2.8GHz.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...howdoc.aspx?i=2903&p=3

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl.../pentium-e2160_14.html

Thanks for the "straight forward" comparison:) With all the different procs around, it's tough trying to get a "general" idea on performance.
 

Budarow

Golden Member
Dec 16, 2001
1,917
0
0
Originally posted by: BIGFOOTPI
looks like the 2160 is strong in that second review, but the 2140 poops

Strange you should mention that...I read that review and promptly ordered the D925 for $66. With OCing...it's always "luck of the draw" anyway (and I always seem to get the dud cpu).

 

GagHalfrunt

Lifer
Apr 19, 2001
25,297
2,000
126
Originally posted by: BIGFOOTPI
looks like the 2160 is strong in that second review, but the 2140 poops

In what space-time continuum is a 1.6ghz chip that OCs to 2.84ghz "poops"? It didn't match the 2160 in that test, but that's still nice performance from a $70 CPU.
 

SerpentRoyal

Banned
May 20, 2007
3,517
0
0
They are all C2Ds. With a good board/RAM and capable overclocker, 50% of these chips should be able to hit 3.0 to 3.2GHz. Remember that bell curve in school? Standard deviation...GE's 3 sigma. I personally would avoid all C2Ds with 7x multi. Too much stress on the rig. 9 to 10x is the sweet spot.
 

BIGFOOTPI

Golden Member
Mar 8, 2005
1,029
0
0
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Originally posted by: BIGFOOTPI
looks like the 2160 is strong in that second review, but the 2140 poops

In what space-time continuum is a 1.6ghz chip that OCs to 2.84ghz "poops"? It didn't match the 2160 in that test, but that's still nice performance from a $70 CPU.


I'm referring to its "FSB wall" in that review only. Which should be very important to TRUE overclockers.
 

BIGFOOTPI

Golden Member
Mar 8, 2005
1,029
0
0
Originally posted by: Budarow
Originally posted by: BIGFOOTPI
looks like the 2160 is strong in that second review, but the 2140 poops

Strange you should mention that...I read that review and promptly ordered the D925 for $66. With OCing...it's always "luck of the draw" anyway (and I always seem to get the dud cpu).

Strange I should mention it? Mention what? Which part of my comment has ANYTHING to do with a D925 CPU?

FMI- why did you choose to get a D925 instead? I don't understand why you would do that unless your motherboard cannot accept "Core" processors, or if you do NOT plan to overclock... just curious seeing as this thread is touting this new low cost Core cpu
 

Budarow

Golden Member
Dec 16, 2001
1,917
0
0
Originally posted by: BIGFOOTPI
Originally posted by: Budarow
Originally posted by: BIGFOOTPI
looks like the 2160 is strong in that second review, but the 2140 poops

Strange you should mention that...I read that review and promptly ordered the D925 for $66. With OCing...it's always "luck of the draw" anyway (and I always seem to get the dud cpu).

Strange I should mention it? Mention what? Which part of my comment has ANYTHING to do with a D925 CPU?

FMI- why did you choose to get a D925 instead? I don't understand why you would do that unless your motherboard cannot accept "Core" processors, or if you do NOT plan to overclock... just curious seeing as this thread is touting this new low cost Core cpu

I read the AT review on the 2140 and the limited OC/FBS wall and it reminded me that OCing is NOT guaranteed.

Even at stock speeds, the 2140 is a little faster than a stock D925; however, the D925 was ~20% cheaper than the 2140 and because I don't general have much luck getting procs which will OC well plus I'm using an ASRocks mobo which also does not OC well, I opted for the D925.

Additionally, I've learned to buy the cheapest proc available which will still get the job done. If you're not completely hard pressed for time (i.e., you lose money with a slower PC), buying higher end/more expensive CPUs (or video cards for that matter) is a losing proposition. In a year, the price is always 50% or more lower and essentially 1 gets 2 cpus (or video cards) for the same money.

I would have ordered the 2140 for this price cause it's only ~$10 more than what I paid for the D925. But when I ordered the D925 ~1 week ago, the 2140 was ~$25 more. Yeah, it would have been only $25 more, but $25 is a nice lunch:)
 

SerpentRoyal

Banned
May 20, 2007
3,517
0
0
None one has a crystal ball. Spending a little more $ for an overclocking board is a good compromize. Next step is to secure an E2xx0 or E4xx0 CPU. You'll have a 70% chance of hitting 3.0GHz with quality DDR2 667 memory.
 

Budarow

Golden Member
Dec 16, 2001
1,917
0
0
Originally posted by: SerpentRoyal
None one has a crystal ball. Spending a little more $ for an overclocking board is a good compromize. Next step is to secure an E2xx0 or E4xx0 CPU. You'll have a 70% chance of hitting 3.0GHz with quality DDR2 667 memory.

I ordered the ASRocks mobo in order to use my DDR1 RAM and AGP video card while still being able to use a faster proc. I'm upgrading an existing AMD Socket 462 PC. I bought a new case, D925 and mobo for a total of $149.


 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,326
10,034
126
Originally posted by: Budarow
Even at stock speeds, the 2140 is a little faster than a stock D925; however, the D925 was ~20% cheaper than the 2140 and because I don't general have much luck getting procs which will OC well plus I'm using an ASRocks mobo which also does not OC well, I opted for the D925.

Additionally, I've learned to buy the cheapest proc available which will still get the job done. If you're not completely hard pressed for time (i.e., you lose money with a slower PC), buying higher end/more expensive CPUs (or video cards for that matter) is a losing proposition. In a year, the price is always 50% or more lower and essentially 1 gets 2 cpus (or video cards) for the same money.

I would have ordered the 2140 for this price cause it's only ~$10 more than what I paid for the D925. But when I ordered the D925 ~1 week ago, the 2140 was ~$25 more. Yeah, it would have been only $25 more, but $25 is a nice lunch:)

Yes, but what is your power and cooling cost to run that 925, versus the 2140?