An $89 Pentium Dual Core that Runs at 3.2 GHz

[warezme]

You dont need anywhere near that kind of voltage to get that overclock and telling people they can volt their c2d's to 1.625 is not very smart.

No my overclock is considerably higher and on quads, goofus.

The point was lost on your stupidity that 1.5v is not an obscene voltage that will fry your chip by next week, month or year. When a chip is well cooled a pedestrian volt of 1.5v is not going to bother it one bit. If you want to hold your pantywaist E6300 at 1.32v or whatever so be it. Its your choice, just don't start hollering wolf without knowing. I have OC'ed C2D's and Q2D's up to 1.65v and ain't one of them died yet. I wouldn't recommend over 1.65 without extreme cooling but its doable.

 

[menetlaus]

Let me first admit I don't know everything. All the power efficiency data I've seen had the AMD's in the lead. I didn't realize the 6000+ was that much of a hog compared to the rest of the line-up. So go ahead, flame away.

Its very true that you can just get a more expensive processor and end up with better results. But that doesn't mean that AMD would be the better choice still. For just about the same price as the X2 6000 you could get an E6550 ($5 difference on Newegg right now) and OC both of them and end up ahead with the Intel processor again.

Did I say the AMD was the better choice? No. My point was that while you can OC this CPU to a big number for a low cost, there are drawbacks (heat/noise) that can be avoided without a huge cost premium (the 5600+ or e6550 for about the same $ as adding a heatsink to the e2150 to make it bearable to be in a quiet room)

If you want to stay with a low end OCed CPU for one company then you had better stay with a low end OCed CPU for the other company to have any real comparision. And if you want to move to a mid range CPU running at stock then you had better do that with both companies as well.

Just keep the comparisions on an even level. You can't just change the focus of the article and then claim it is wrong based on a new set of criteria that was never implied in the first place. The focus was on the highest % OC they could get out of a chip. Not the total cost of ownership or the fastest possible performance out of any chip.

I look at the price (first) in comparing CPU's, not where that CPU sits on the company's lineup. Right now the top of AMD's line is priced to be competitive with the lower Intel's. I didn't say there was anything wrong with how the testing was done, and as I said above, I was only pointing out ONE different CPU option with roughly similar performace. This was something that was not considered in the article as only the e2150, and 6750/6850 were included here.

 

[PeterHighlander]

Hey Warezme... fyi.

I had an Intel 1.6A. The old OCing champ. Pushed it right up to 2.4Gig, very very modist voltage bump... like on knotch. 2.3-3 years ran great... one day boom BSOD. Last part I ever suspected would go bad was bad. Served me well however, I recycle, and a 2.4Gig machine is a solid office machine. This problem was nearly $$ in that finding a plug in replacement was difficult... and more than the new C2D

So, I still OC, but I know first hand, you are running a risk of early retirement.

 

[nonoitall]

Just a really small mistake I noticed in the article: In the Lame benchmark the red bar doesn't correspond to the OC'd Pentium Dual-Core. I don't mean to nitpick but I thought I'd mention it. :lol:

 

[KyleSTL]

Peter, What is this '4100+' you are talking about? I am unaware of anything in the AMD lineup ever being called a 4100+. You may be thinking about the 4000+ Athlon 64 X2 Brisbane core, or the 4200+ Windsor core, but I don't know. Also, what is an 'Intel 1.6A'? Do you mean a Intel Pentium 4 Willamette processor? When you're refering to things, you sound very ignorant about what you are talking about.

Also, you say first hand that there's a major risk in OCing (you learned first hand) and you're also talking about OCing an AMD chip to the same level as a 125W TDP version. Kinda double-standardized, you think? And saying it's more efficient than an OC'd 65W Intel chip?

This thread has certainly deteriorated.

 

[TSIMonster]

I may have missed it, but do you have any temperature info on the overclock? They did say stock cooling, right?

Nice article.

 

[onestar]

It is of interest that various ones extend their CPU preference to these extremes and with such antagonistic verbage. Instead of enthusiasts, perhaps a better nomer would be extremists.

Now, is it not true that some will need to have the absolute biggest and baddest at whatever cost, and others will temper their expenditure to the type of computing they actually do within a budget? Which one is better, which one is more efficient, which one is faster, which one cost less...is all relative, and....a matter of personal choice (and budget).

In the end, both Intel and AMD are fine CPUs, and both get the job done. My only real question is where would AMD be today, if Intel had not coerced the larger manufacturers to shun AMD processors in favour of Intel. More R&D dollars usually equates to better products.

 

[PeterHighlander]

haha... Kyle, guess you had to through the ignorant thing back in my face... of course I intended to mean devoid of knowledge, not that anyone is stupid.

The 1.6A is a year 2002 Generation P4 w/ 512k cache. Similar to the Celeron 300A... remember that one on the 440BX chipset, ringing any bells. Anyway, the 1.6A was the first chip which I was ever able to push upwards of 50% OC. All other overclocks, at least for me, were modest. Typically toping out at 20%-25%. I did have one hand selected stepping of a mobile AMD XP chip hit 40% OC.... Anyway, the 50% OC chip is the only CPU I've ever had just die. All less aggressive OCs are still in service.
I'm pointing out a couple of things by saying this.

1) Earlier in this post someone said OCing won't hurt the chip. That's simply to bold a statement.
2) Counting on a 50% overclock is risky business. Counting on it remaining stable can cause hair loss.
3) If only a modest overclock is considered "safe" the AMD chips become more attractive.
4) Given evidence that Intel chips tend to be more pricey than AMD, It's likely that a quad core upgrade in 6-8 months will be more attractive on an AM2 system.

** Tom's and other review sites consistently avoid reviewing AMD support products. ie, motherboards! I wanna see some darn AMD reviews. I know Intel is faster... and more expensive. I wanna know more about the AMD systems. Everyone just says.. "They are slower". I want some AMD reviews!!!!!!

As for the 4100+ guess I was confused. Somehow 2100Mhz + 4000+ melded into 4100+, sorry for that. Brisbane 65nm core @ 2100Mhz 65Watt. To hit the 3.0Gig mark you need just under a 50% OC. This CPU is down in price ATM... $65 bucks.

 

[joefriday]

Pwhat is an 'Intel 1.6A'?

A 400 fsb northwood at 1.6GHz. It and it's 1.8A sibling were popular in the overclocking crowd back in 2002-early 2003 for being able to run effortlessly on the 533 fsb, thereby achieving clocks of 2.13 and 2.4GHz, respectively.

EDIT: ah, I see PeterHighlander beat me to the reply.

 

[KyleSTL]

Thank you for the enlightenment, I did not mean to sound so accusatory. So the lineage of famously OCing Intels is 300A -> 1.6A -> PD 805 -> Pentium E21x0 series. I had never heard of the 1.6A before, I guess you learn something new everyday.

 

[nevasumma]

"Will that $75 AMD CPU work on a stock cooler at 3.0GHz or are you going to have to spend that $50 you saved on a high end cooler in which case you haven't came out ahead in price or performance." erloas I'm STILL laughing!

55$ AMD 4000+ 45$ Cooler Master Eclipse ***ONLY 1 GIG RAM*** 939 IS NOT DEAD!
OC to 2824mhz (can go higher) + I can use the Eclipse to cool my FX-60/Opty180 when I upgrade. see quote above
I get better benchies than people w/C2D AND 2 GIG RAM OR X2 w/2GIG RAM
The point... why pay for overkill. I heard that I could have just used the stock cooler on that CPU to achieve the same over-clock. That's $75.
I play Supreme Commander on 1 mon. and watch the Simpsons on the other mon. at the same time. ONLY 1GIG RAM... ONLY one processor core!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can you say OVERKILL??? $300 for an Intel CPU(E6600/E6700)... CPU only BTW no RAM. Even W/that $90 Intel CPU.
Sorry It's a bad day when I hear that some one paid so much to play a game at 120FPS when 40-60 is PLENTY!
Intel is the new KING of CPU's. I got over it while playing Oblivion maxed out in every way (min.45fps) BTW...w/my super cheap sys.

 

[zenmaster]

1Gig Ram? Ouch.

I would be in a real pinch.

As I look in TaskMgr at my top 3 processes for Mem Usage.
--------------------------------------------------------
1,258,988
531,896
529,952

 

[menetlaus]

Thank you for the enlightenment, I did not mean to sound so accusatory. So the lineage of famously OCing Intels is 300A -> 1.6A -> PD 805 -> Pentium E21x0 series. I had never heard of the 1.6A before, I guess you learn something new everyday.

The Core 2 Duo e4xxx series also OC very well from the reviews I've seen. One had the e4300 with about ~90% OC on air (room temp), or 110% oc when the system was run outside (it was ~freezing outside).

Offhand does anyone know the difference between the e2xxx and e4xxx series? I know the e4x has 2x the cache (2MB). I think the e2x was based on the Core Duo architecture while the e4x was off the Core 2 Duo, is this right?

 

[KyleSTL]

Both are based on the same architecture. The e4x00 series has twice the cache (as you mentioned), [strike]and has a slightly higher Extended Halt power of 12W (as opposed to the 8W for the E21x0 series). [/strike]Both have a 800 Mhz FSB and are pretty good processors for the price (I think).

Correction: the newer steppings of both processors carry the 8W halt state, and the older of both have the 12W.

 

[enewmen]

Impressive benchmarks for a low-tech CPU.
I wonder what can be done with X2 ??
I don't think either has a chance with the yorkfield.

 

[nevasumma]

I've been toying with the idea of 2gig ram, as I use ArchiCAD 10 and Photoshop CS2 at the same time. plus the Simpson's of course. But I do it w/ 1gig ram right now, and still achieve success.

 

[zenmaster]

There really is not much of a difference between the two other than the cache. The 2xxxx Series, however, does seem to OC Higher. Not sure if it's the reduced cache or not. However, the E4xxxx series will do better clock for clock because of the extra cache.

I have one E4300 that I run at 3.0Ghz AND I have also reduced the voltage below stock. It runs real nice cool and quite most of the time.
It was also stable at 3.2Ghz and stock voltage, but I could hear my CPU fan a little more often so I just cut it back. From what I can tell, I likely have a pretty good E4300.

 

[sparky79]

First of all, this is a Hardware Enthusiast site, and this aritcle completely falls into that catagory. And im not sure, but people that only use there computers for work or to run word really have no business hanging out here. Really what would be the point. And anyone building a rig using any of the components being talked about in here really shouldnt be crying about power consumption. I have been running my machines for years overclocked because I like to get my moneys worth out of what I buy and I cant really tell a difference on my electric bill, the air conditioner in the house costs more!

And to the comment that 2-3 years is a short life span, that sounds great to me because it would be old crap anyway that would need to be replaced because the games at the time will demand more.

 

[zenmaster]

Well, power consumption is important for multiple reasons.

My biggest concern more power == more need for cooling == more noise or massive cooling costs

And yes, I suspect an efficient system would make a noticable difference in your power bill over time. Just because you are not in a position to perform the scientific analysis does not mean it's not there.

In my home office I have 3 Desktop Systems running 24x7 and two laptops that often get into the mix. Trust me, I take both performance and power requirements into account.

If I can get a PSU that is more efficient and cuts power usage/heat/noise great.

If I have a choice between two CPUs with the same horsepower, I'm definitely looking at power.

If It takes 3m 10s to Untar a file vs 3m 12s with that last little OC that takes a large voltage increase, do you really think my life is going to be positively altered by that 2s I would not have noticed by spent simply finishing reading something else? Or do you think I might actually enjoy the 5db reduction in cooling noise so I can better enjoy peace and quite or perhaps some music?

Note: Did you ever wonder how much your PC was adding to the AC Bill? Just another thought :>

 

[Retrogame]

Personally I thought this was a fun little article. I don't see why so many people are upset

They took an el-cheapo CPU and made it match performance, blow-for-blow (at least at low game resolutions) with a "real" 3 GHz CPU with A) minimal investment, and B) little-to-ow futzing. Because they're experienced overclockers they tweaked the voltages a wee bit but nothing too outrageous. They used pretty standard parts and even the stock cooler from the box.

What I took from this article was that they did it because they could, and they were pleasantly surprised at how easy it was and how well it went. :lol:

So the machine won't necessarily last a super long time, but as they pointed out you could probably do more overclocking in the same way in the future.


What I would like to see is the results of this overclock using the same testbed as they did for the interactive CPU charts, running the same benchmarks as on the charts... especially the real system-hog apps under Vista. Then you could see it in an apples-to-apples way.

I'd also like to see them keep doing goofball overclock builds like this that you could probably reliably try building yourself if you were confident enough of the results... I think it's meant in good fun. Maybe you could use it to build a lan party box you don't mind lugging around and getting dinged up this way and leave your "fancy" computer at home where it's safe

 

[Zorg]

Now that I have read this thread it is all clear.

 

[sincraft]

I've been doing this for many many years. I don't have the time to learn hardware like I would like to. I rarely overclock and understand the logistics behind it but don't sit and run numbers of cost/benefit in my head at all in this regards.

What I DO KNOW is, that for EVERY Intel chip I've owned, I've never heard a peep about having to download a driver, or opps I bought the wrong core etc etc etc. It's just been ROCK solid and stable, 99% of the time.

My friends had AMD and would blue screen constantly. They researched EVERY component and completed the perfect systems. Then finally when in game, they would lag - crash - etc. Many usually figured things out and worked through their issues.
Earlier AMD's were even more buggy.

So as time went on, I heard more and more about AMD's ability and viability in the marketplace - and made the leap for a mid priced system (last year). I can honestly say that it has been a pleasure having this system but I'm disappointed at the lack luster test results and at times, a couple blue screens.
I like my friends, went through the arduous process they did years ago of researching and implementing the best package I could configure and probably moreso as I'm a bit obsessive about this stuff when I get hooked on it.

Alas - I can say that from now on, I will be getting an Intel for my main gaming machines without hesitation. AMD can tout their speeds or ability to overclock, but believe it or not -not many people are interested in overclocking their systems. They want to plug......and play.

My last intel system lasted me 3+ years, I ran better than or at the average frames of others who constantly upgraded due to this or that - and I NEVER cracked the case once...ever. Ran like a dream just like all of my Intels did.

These are just my opinions not backed by science. However here IS a bit of science.

So as I see it and have for years:
-You want it cheap, fast, with turbo capable but at a price of stability and lifespan? AMD
-You want it to work , work with everything without questions, and last forever but pay a bit more? Intel

 

[slicessoul]

Did they mention about temp ?

 

[randomizer]

When talking about the auto voltage boost as they pushed the FSB, they should have included a statement saying that it is better to manually set the vcore because the board may set it higher than needed at a given clock speed, or perhaps lower. That and the fact that they didn't (I don't think) mention temps are my only real problems with the article.

Otherwise it was interesting to see how it stacked up against higher cached CPUs, although an E4x00 would have been nice to see in there also.

 

[T8RR8R]

yeah it'd be great to reach 600+ FSB but if your temps are 80+ on the CPU and 80+ on the NB, then it's pretty pointless because you're stuff will last roughly a year. Although those CPU's are relatively cheap.