**UPDATE**INTEL rumors from HardOCP

[Corporate Thug]

Straight from the Hard website:

Intel OC Rumors:
We just got a report from one of the retailers that we work with about their most recent Intel Pentium 2.4C. This was an OEM CPU, not a boxed retail processor, and it would not run stable at 12*250MHz giving an effective clock rate of 3GHz. As you have seen us refer to here in the past couple of months, every 2.4C that we got hold of would do a stable 3GHz easily, but those has also been all retail boxed CPUs.

This is of course not the first time we have seen the "same" CPUs be so different and many times we can simply refer to their "SLXXX" production code numbers laser cut into the Pentium 4heatspreader or on the box to sort out the lesser desirable CPUs. What is troubling, is that in this case, the OEM CPU carried the coveted "SL6WF" production code, the very same as the retail 2.4Cs that we have been seeing running at 3.3GHz and above.

So at the moment, it seems as though the enthusiasts out there might want to steer clear of the OEM 2.4Cs until we get more information from more sources. Of course we will keep you updated.

 

[Wingznut]

So, correct me if I am wrong... They got one 2.4ghz cpu that would not run at 3.0ghz, and by that single example, they are declaring that all 2.4ghz of that stepping are probably poor overclockers?

Hmmmm... Maybe I ought to try that methodology at work.

 

[Corporate Thug]

they aren't saying that they are all poor overclockers, they are suggesting that maybe people who are going to upgrade should eait a little while to see if the trend of poor overclocking continues

 

[Wingznut]

I know... Basically they are saying: "Newsflash! We have heard of someone who knows someone who has one cpu that didn't reach our very high expectations! Alert the media!"

It just frustrates me a bit when people expect too much out of every single cpu made. I see people all the time commenting on how their cpu is "faulty" because it doesn't live up to internet lore standards.

Every cpu is different. Just because Bob has success (or lack thereof) with one particular stepping, doesn't mean that Joe will have the same experience.

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Originally posted by: shady06
Straight from the Hard website:

Intel OC Rumors:
We just got a report from one of the retailers that we work with about their most recent Intel Pentium 2.4C. This was an OEM CPU, not a boxed retail processor, and it would not run stable at 12*250MHz giving an effective clock rate of 3GHz. As you have seen us refer to here in the past couple of months, every 2.4C that we got hold of would do a stable 3GHz easily, but those has also been all retail boxed CPUs.

This is of course not the first time we have seen the "same" CPUs be so different and many times we can simply refer to their "SLXXX" production code numbers laser cut into the Pentium 4heatspreader or on the box to sort out the lesser desirable CPUs. What is troubling, is that in this case, the OEM CPU carried the coveted "SL6WF" production code, the very same as the retail 2.4Cs that we have been seeing running at 3.3GHz and above.

So at the moment, it seems as though the enthusiasts out there might want to steer clear of the OEM 2.4Cs until we get more information from more sources. Of course we will keep you updated.

Overclocking is always YMMV, you might get a champ or you might get a dud. You should never buy a CPU and say "if my 2.4C doesn't hit at least 3 GHz, I'm returning it for another", that's not fair to either Intel or the retailer. All this to say that this is non-news, especially if it's based on one CPU

 

[cainsdive]

!!!!! THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!

 

[zephyrprime]

But how many retail cpu 2.4 have they tried? It would have to be a pretty high number to give them any statistical validity.

It's no big deal really. Look at the people with new athlon 1700+ that can't run at more than ~2.1ghz. There must be at some albeit few p4 2.4 that really can't run at more than 2.4.

 

[orion7144]

They were talking about the OEM version. It still doesn't mean they should say anything based on one instance.

 

[ProfessorFate]

Of course, having more hits on Hard's website is a good thing and a little controversy doesn't hurt.

 

[Ketchup]

Sounds like BS to me. An unnamed source has one OEM CPU that doesn't overclock well. There have been a few people in these forums with poor overclocks on the D1's, so I don't think this is going to amount to anything. I don't think HardOCP has any right to publish this so early in the game. If the source was verified and had the problem with several of that stepping, only then could I see how they would have cause to publish something like that.

 

[lookouthere]

they are just assuming OEMs are bad for overclock. Actually not all OEMs are that.

 

[Duvie]

Sounds like a lot of ASSuming to me!!! Hardly scientific top make any conclusions or generalizations, period!!!

 

[DivideBYZero]

Worst rumour, EVAR!!!!111

 

[Corporate Thug]

**UPDATE**


More on Intel 2.4C OC:
I got several mails since our post yesterday about the OEM version of the 2.4C not making the 3GHz OC mark. It seems as though some end users are seeing this as well. Still at this point we have not seen any reports of retail box 2.4Cs not living up to current enthusiast standards. More on this when we know.

UPDATE: Lot's of mail coming in currently on this. I have gotten one report of an OEM 2.4C doing 3.3GHz. Also we have several reports of Retail 2.4Cs that will not do above 3.0GHz at default voltage. So with what little information we do have currently, it would seem that the retail box is still a much safer bet. Please share your experiences with us, but include the mainboard you are using, Vcore, and cooling solution please.

 

[Vonkhan]

head for the hills!!!

 

[WarCon]

From [ H ]ODS ([ H ]ard Organized Disinformation Service) - Intel is marketing inferior products versus General Mills. The retail box that the 2.4C is of an inferior grade and quality compared to the boxes that General Mills ships cereal in. Oh and BTW if you choose not to purchase the 3-year warranty (the boxed version), don't be surprised if the product won't run as far out of spec as one that Intel chooses to go into the box. If it does then , if it doesn't then..........

P.S. We don't recommend you buy cereal without the box..........

Also, I am the proud owner of a retail 2.4B that won't go over 2.7 on default voltage, (running 2.79 on 1.60v (1.55v measureed). Overclocking is a gamble, be prepared to not always win the jackpot on the first spin guys.

 

[Ketchup]

Overclocking has as much to do with the people performing the overclocks as it does the hardware that is being run above spec.

I can't help but think the cause-effect relationship might be misconstrued here. They said several e-mails came in today about 2.4's not getting above 3 ghz. Now, is this because the same people that normally get good overclocks with these chips are getting bad overclocks now, or is it because people that aren't experienced overclockers saw yesterday's post and e-mailed HardOCP because they can't figure out how to get there chip very high (for example, running a memory ratio of 1:1, or not locking the AGP/PCI bus, or something of that nature.)?

Just a thought.

 

[Dug]

My 350Mhz PII doesn't run at stable at 3Ghz either.

 

[INGlewood78]

WOW...this seems to be a sensitive matter to many people...its just a chip guys...haha. Hardocp just pointed out an obvious fact. Overclocking is not guarenteed. You didnt pay for it! If you get some...feel lucky...if you dont...well...then thats just the way the cookie crumbles.

Happy Overclocking!

 

[touchmyichi]

Originally posted by: Dug
My 350Mhz PII doesn't run at stable at 3Ghz either.

imao

 

[OddTSi]

Wait. Are they trying to tell me that overclocking ability isn't guaranteed? Ha, like I'll believe that.

Next they'll try to tell me that the sky is blue. Yeah, sure it is buddy.

 

[Auric]

Welp, the core voltages are now set during packaging or somesuch -anyway, they vary within a model depending on the capability of the individual CPU. If you peruse retail boxes then you can select one with a lower voltage and thus increase the chances of getting a better unit that is more likely to o'erclock well. The difference is what, $5? Are you feeling lucky punk? Seriously, arent't there some folks about that work for Intel? Is there even any particular sorting that takes place to determine which are boxed and which arent? I mean, why bother as it would just add to the cost of business and reap no financial return.

 

[anomaly]

I ended up getting an OEM 2.4C as I was getting a SLK-900, so I didn't need the HSF. It will NOT run anything over 250mhz fsb with stability. I can barely get it to run at speed stable. Im going to RMA it and see if I can't upgrade to a retail.

 

[Confused]

I got one of the coverted "C1" 2.4B's, the SL6EF, the "OMG IT GETS TO 3.0GHz ON DEFAULT VOLTAGE!!1!!11!!111!" ones.

Guess what. 2.7 is the best it will get to on default voltage, and 2.93 on higher volts. Do I care...not really, as all I was guaranteed was 2.4GHz, and it does that.

I got a TBred B 1700+, which according to everyone, should do 2.2GHz and more, on default voltage. Guess what! 2.1GHz on 1.85V is the best I'm getting! Do I care? No. I bought a £45 CPU, rated to run at 1.47GHz. I'm actually exstatic that it gets to even 2GHz!

 

[Tom]

Not too long ago I read a message from a gut that was ticked off because he couldn't get his 3.0C processor to run at 275FSB like the people with 2.4Cs.
:Q