So I was thinkin...

[TheBigZ]

... now that we have the CUSL2 hittin the streets soon with it's wonderful 1mhz stepping. Has the 700e been dethroned as the best choice for reasonable priced oc'ing? Note I did note say the cheapest, but reasonably priced. How about the CUSL2, an intel 800 (133fsb) (these are ALL cb0 stepping right?) and either of the popular high end memory modules (Mushkin or Crucial) that have been known to go as high as 150mhz reliably??

The 800-133 is a 6x multiplier (any higher multiplier only tends to reduce performance right?), so if you could get it up to 150mhz with good cooling both on the chip and in the case, wouldn't it be faster at 900 (150 at 6x) than the 700 clocked to 933?

My 300a cel has been runnin at 450 for well over a year now, but it's time to upgrade and I'm tryin to get the most for my money so I can get 12 to 18 months out of the new rig. So am I thinkin clearly? Have I missed anything?

 

[KarsinTheHutt]

As far as I know, the 700e cb0 stepping is still the best deal at about 220 $US. Everything 800 MHz + is a cb0 stepping I have read. The 800eb oc to a 150MHz fsb should be about the same as the 700e @ 933, but I don't know if the mobo/ram will be very stable at 150 MHz (an i815 can probably take it, BX I wouldn't recommend).

I'd go with the 700e, mostly because of the price.

 

[TheBigZ]

I think I covered all that in my post... the price, the ram and the mb. Aside from that, am I thinking logically folks?

 

[Mikewarrior2]

A higher multiplier DOES NOT reduce performance.

For example, several people have gotten their 700Es to 1050mhz. That's a 7.5 multiplier.

I have my 650E up to 975, 150mhz bus, 6.5 multiplier.

THe problem with going with an 800EB is there isn't as much headroom for overclocking. i'm guessing you could push it to 900(6x150) but why, when you can take a 700E higher.

Also, you're treating a 700E as maxing out at 933(133 bus)... Even at 933, the 700E would still be faster in certain things than the 800EB @ 900. NOt to mention the 700E still has overclocking headroom, while the 800EB is damn near max at 900.


Mike

 

[Ulysses]

I think he has a good point that a 900/150 may be faster than a 933/133.

However, you might find it difficult to bump an 800/133 to 900/150, or anything else to 150 for that matter, while a 700/100 to 933/133 might be easier. Also, the CAS/RAS settings might have to be set back (increased) to be stable at 150, thus reducing performance. Not to mention the other effects of running @ 150.

P.S.
I prefer to look at the prices for what I call a 'sweet' spot between conservative overclockability and price jumps. Right now that looks to me like the 750 @ maybe $300. At 750 x 125% = 933 MHz = sure and safe and not too expensive.

 

[Mikewarrior2]

Well... if you really think about it, the only thing that would really be faster is a memory benchmark(which, like you said, would be negated if you had to run at cas3).

Most apps would prefer the 933(which on a coppermine has the l2 cache running at 933). That's why i disagree with his statement "any higher multiplier tends to reduce performance..."



Mike