2.0a or 2.4b?

[wbj]

So I'm finally getting back in the game again and I'm wondering... assuming high quality components, is a 2.4b significantly better than a 2.0a for overclocking?

 

[halkebul]

The 2.0a is a risky overclocker, that is say, it is unacceptably possible that you may end up with a FSB less than the now common 133MHz (533MHz quad-pumped) FSB. I would choose the 1.8A over the 2.0a as it obtains a fast and stable overclock of 18x133MHz = 2.4GHz. Which is exactly the same as the 2.4b. Thus my recommendation is neither the 2.0a nor 2.4b, but rather the 1.8A. Save your $$$ and improve other components of your system.

<i>It's your world kid!!!</i>

 

[Col_Kiwi]

I'd suggest exactly the same.

Many 1.8a chips will run higher then 133FSB. My 1.8 is at 143FSB right now.

-Col.Kiwi

 

[groth2757]

Would you need to water cool a 1.8 when running at 2.4 or would a high quality HSF do the trick?

<font color=blue>Clean your keyboard once a month to avoid sticky keys. <font color=blue>

 

[chuck232]

Pffff... the stock Intel HSF does fine. I've got a P4 2.4B that'll do 2.84GHz with stock HSF easy. Haven't tried to push it further yet.

...And all the King's horses and all the King's men couldn't put my computer back together again...

 

[halkebul]

"the stock Intel HSF does fine"

I second this notion, the Intel stock cooler is quite sufficent. I commend Intel in this regard.

<i>It's your world kid!!!</i>

 

[Crashman]

Right, most 1.8A processors will run higher than 2.4GHz on the stock heatsink. The 2.0A will likely run over 2.66GHz on water cooling, but getting to 2.66GHz on stock cooling is only by luck.

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>