Should I buy a 1500+ or 1600+?

[BD231]

I'm going for 166mhz fsb with some Crosair 3200 ddr and an MSI KT3 Ultra that I have already. I'll only take what the processor gives me at default voltage because I want to keep the heat to a minumum. What do you guy's think I should get? Are these 2 processors pretty much the same deal in terms of stepping? 1666mhz is more than enough for me so this is the only reason I ask, I'd rather have 1666mhz than 1700+ mhz.

 

[tsnyder]

why not go with PC2700... prefereablly Samsung if all you're going to try and reach is 166mhz? I would imagine a 1600+ would be the best bang for the buck (what $53-$55?). I mean I wouldn't waste my money on cheap ram but I also wouldn't waste it on memory that scales higher than you need.
If you run PC3200 at 166mhz it would perform no better than any ram only rated at 166mhz. Right?

Personally I think the only chips worth buying if you intend to really overclock would be "underclocked" Northwoods like the 1.6A and 1.8A P4's. AMD does make a great product though for the money.

 

[Insane3D]

The 1600+ is a better buy and it's actually cheaper than the 1500+. I haven't seen one yet that won't do 166mhz FSB, 1.75ghz @ default vcore.

Just curious...why are you upgrading? Weren't you saying in my silent XP system thread that Athlon systems act like"space heaters"? 😕

Edit: I don't want to come off as being a jerk or anything...I'm just curious...you seem to be real adamant that all Athlon systems put out a ton of heat..

🙂

 

[tsnyder]

I don't like the term overclocking... I prefer the term optimizing =)

I mean really, if you don't have to overheat or overvolt a chip to get it to run at a given speed reliably is it really overclocking? I think overclocking is when you run a chip out of it's functional range, where it causes corrupted data and/or runs too hot causing it to burn out. I also think manufacturers sell their cpu's at given speeds for commercial reasons, could Intel sell 80% of their yeild at the highest speeds possible even if 80% of their chips could reach it? I don't think so... in fact of the worst chips coming out of a yield how much slower do you really expect them to be compared to the best? Granted my opinion is completely based on conjecture.

 

[Sunner]

Well, overclocking is running the chip at a higher clockspeed than specified by the manufacturer.

Why the manufacturer specified 1.4 GHz is another matter, but you're absolutely correct, many CPU's are rated lower than they can handle in reality to meet market demands, but still, if a CPU is specified for 1.4 GHz, and you it at 1.5 GHz, you're running it out of spec, overclocking it.

 

[BD231]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
The 1600+ is a better buy and it's actually cheaper than the 1500+. I haven't seen one yet that won't do 166mhz FSB, 1.75ghz @ default vcore.

Just curious...why are you upgrading? Weren't you saying in my silent XP system thread that Athlon systems act like"space heaters"? 😕

Edit: I don't want to come off as being a jerk or anything...I'm just curious...you seem to be real adamant that all Athlon systems put out a ton of heat..

🙂

I've be screwing around with different Intel(P4) and AMD chip's for a few months now so I have really only been using a K6-2 system as my main computer for the most part 😛. I have a kind of small room and it gets hot pretty quick so any system with some power to it will heat up the room, Athlons of any sort just happen to be cpu's that do it a bit quicker for some reason. I'm not really upgrading, if anything I'm down grading 🙂.

I'm not really worried about which CPU is a better buy, if money was really an issue I wouldn't have such expensive memory. I bought the memory because I just wanted something future proof, maybe one day I'll actually need it to run at 200+mhz 🙂. With that said, will the 1500+ cpu's OC to 166mhz fsb just as well as the 1600+ CPU's?

 

[Arcanedeath]

The 1600+ is a better buy atm, it's actualy cheaper than the 1500+, and if both chips are the same core stepping, then in general, they will tend to top out at around the same speeds, but then again, it's just the luck of the draw, no guarentee's when OCing anything lol. Hope this helps....🙂

 

[Whitedog]

Dooood... If money is Not an issue.... Than why not just buy the 2200+ and be at 1.8GHz? 😛

 

[BD231]

Originally posted by: Whitedog
Dooood... If money is Not an issue.... Than why not just buy the 2200+ and be at 1.8GHz? 😛

Because I want 166mhz fsb "dood" 😉. I dont need or want a 1.8ghz CPU, which is why I'm asking if the 1500+ is a good overclocker! Just a simple question that needs no work arounds or answers that point out obvious facts that I'm not looking for. Thanks Arcanedeath, now I feel a little better about picking up a 1500+, anyone know if there is any place that sells these CPU's unlocked? I tried to unlock once and it did not go very well.

 

[Insane3D]

BD231 -

In my opinion, your much better off getting a 1600+. The 1600+ will run @ 166mhz FSB, with no additional voltage, and reach a higher speed than the 1500+ @ 166mhz FSB. Also, the 1500+ is more of a "crap shoot" since no one is really buying these things anymore, so you are much more likely to get an older core or stepping that may not do the 166mhz FSB. Also, if you look @ Newegg prices, the 1500+ is more expensive than the 1600+. IMO, it makes no sense to spend more for a slower CPU that may or may not o/c well than getting a faster, more likely to o/c and reach a higher speed doing it....for less.

I have two 1600+'s here on 8K5A2+ boards, and both do 166mhz FSB, 1.75ghz @ default vcore. You other concern is heat. IMO, the difference in wattage output between 1.66ghz and 1.75ghz should not be significant....

 

[BD231]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
BD231 -

In my opinion, your much better off getting a 1600+. The 1600+ will run @ 166mhz FSB, with no additional voltage, and reach a higher speed than the 1500+ @ 166mhz FSB. Also, the 1500+ is more of a "crap shoot" since no one is really buying these things anymore, so you are much more likely to get an older core or stepping that may not do the 166mhz FSB. Also, if you look @ Newegg prices, the 1500+ is more expensive than the 1600+. IMO, it makes no sense to spend more for a slower CPU that may or may not o/c well than getting a faster, more likely to o/c and reach a higher speed doing it....for less.

I have two 1600+'s here on 8K5A2+ boards, and both do 166mhz FSB, 1.75ghz @ default vcore. You other concern is heat. IMO, the difference in wattage output between 1.66ghz and 1.75ghz should not be significant....

Thanks for the layout Insane, very helpfull as usual 🙂