An $89 Pentium Dual Core that Runs at 3.2 GHz

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Leaving the voltage set @ auto 😱 . That's a bit of a risk isn't it? Especially when many C2D's can be oc'd with a voltage reduction. It never fails to amaze me just how cool it is that I can OC my chip and have it run cooler then at stock speeds. I can't wait till I get my new CPU cooler, and run my proc @ 2.8ghz. On cheap DDRII 800 ram, I think that's pretty good value, seeing as I bought the system like 9 months ago.
 
I wonder if there'd be a possibility of testing a e2140, e6400 and e6450 in the same setup, and see what difference the cache actually makes. Simply run them all at 200x8 or 266x8 with cheap ddr533 memory in a lowtech ocs/asrock/pcchips board
 
Now it is certainly odd that our experience is completely opposite of what sincraft (above) relates.

I suspect there is no accounting for personal preference.
 


A good chip that was, but I have like way to many cpu's now rattling around in drawers that have survived much more punishment than a small v increase. I have only killed one chip and that was on an old Barton core 2800+ XP that I didn't seat the heatsink right because those clamps used to push on one end before clamping and it raised the heatsink onto the socket lip not making contact to the chip. She went up in smoke, motherboard and all. This current chip is not running any where near extreme voltage and I just need it to last till the Penryns show up.

I happen to agree that Tom's reviews have become Intel centric. As a publisher they should provide more information on all products available in their comparisons especially budget systems.




 


Not surprising, just an amazingly uninformed response.

The crash most likely has nothing to do with the chip.
Rather it may be driver related, especially if dealing with Vista and DX10.

Benchmarks from any reputable website will show that the GPU is more important the the CPU.
So, for him to claim that his old system with old GPU, slow ram, and slow HDD, will somehow trounce
any current system with a good GPU, DDR2 ram, newer HDDs, and ANY modern CPU is full of it.

Most people here would *** I'm an Intel "FanBoi".
Most of my posts here have been supportive of the current Intel Chips and they are my preference.

However, I really hate such replies which clearly uninformed "Fanboi"ism.
I prefer to think the reason I make my selection is actually based upon sound reasoning for my needs.

And despite my preference for Intel, I do spec AMDs builds for some folks here when it seems to fit their needs better.
 


And 1st hand experience is of little value.
It's doubtful you have the tools for proper analysis.

You are better served with going with the manufactur's engineering guidelines and ***.
They provide information regarding maximum recommended voltages and temperatures.

You will find most review sites when discussing peformance and overclocking, work well within these guidlines.
And it is these OC's that have been discussed in this thread.

My particular CPU is OC'd about 67% but it is accompanied by an UNDER-voltage.
It runs both FAST and Cool. And at this speed it beats the x2 6000+ benches and used much less power.

I can hit much higher OC's, but I choose not to because I want a quite system.
 
Don't forget the 2.4 Northwood 533 with the fsb cranked to 800 ... still got one of those somewhere ... next to my 2500+ Barton ... my 1700+ and then of course the 5X86-133 @ 160 Mhz ... LOL !!
 
this is yet another one of those crack smokers articles. If you want to overclock this thing to 3.2GHz you have to pony up for a premium motherboard. You're looking at a minimum $240 cpu/motherboard/HSF investment. For that much money you can get a decent AMD motherboard and a 2.8GHz AMD processor. It's not quite as fast but then again it's totally stock! So again I must ask, THG, WTF is with your blatant bias towards intel? So what if this thing overclocks like mad. You still get just as good performance from AMD. As if the cpu is the only thing in the world that matters. Hey THG, unlike you, we cant just go pull the rest of the parts we need out of some secret stash we've got laying in our mommies basement! It cost money to build your "overclockers dream" a hell of a lot more than $89.
 
dude, your logic is flawed. They used the stock cooler and you could get the same clock with an $80 or less motherboard.

The 5200+ costs $150, the cheapest a nice motherboard is going to cost is $60-70 and it will not perform as well as this setup here.

Also, you forget, some people ENJOY the overclocking part of it.
 
I agree, the FSB they clocked it to can be achieved on pretty much any motherboard that supports changing the frequency. And they did also state it was using the stock cooler. I also agree, playing around with a setup is more fun than just slapping together brand new parts and going with it. C'mon you gotta tinker.
 

See my post earlier in this thread for that info.
 
Hi all

Sorry to mention this, but it seems that it is turning into an Intel vs. AMD slugfest - again.

Anyways, I've seen a review in SA's PCFormat, where they overclocked a Pentium D840 to 4.1Ghz, initially using stock cooling, but then having to utilise other (but not drastic) comparisons. Even printed it out (own the mag).

Now, that's impressive. The little chip that can. Whilst other C2D's are really impressive for codec wrangling etc, thats real value for money.

I'm running an XP 3200, that I've managed to overclock from 2ghz to 2.5ghz stable, as is, that's a 25% incremental, which isn't too bad, considering its on an entry level board, basically. Though did have to flash the BIOS, as that was the sticking point. Also, the chip is cheap, but I'm currently cash-strapped, so can't look at other options right now.

Personally, I'm waiting to see what AMD does to try shift back into the race, especially for Quad core and C2D equivalents, as the 6000+ (reviewed) had the panties smacked off of it by Intel's chips, and it is a massive power hog. The performance it delivers, versus the cost, and power consumption, make the 6000+ not really a logical buy, unfortunately. I'd maybe buy it if it was even cheaper, considering I'm really not keen to upgrade my mobo, seeing how prices are ridiculous out here. From what I've seen, AMD support mobos do seem to be cheaper than Intel support mobos.

But yes, the Pentium D840 does seem to be the little cheap chip that can do it.
 
Jeez ... the old article was the Pentium D ... dual core Netbust crapola. The 805D

Iv'e got one in my work PC and it blows goats ... the Pentium D805 stock is a dog. A decent 2.4 Northwood with scsi / raid and a good graphics card is money better spent than that 945 board and D series cpu.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/05/10/dual_41_ghz_cores/

That wa a space heater waiting for a hot summer day to go into meltdown ... at idle it pulled more than a dual core under load.

Environmentally unsound.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/10/10/cheap_thrills/ This was the E6400 overclocking article previously ... the authors obviously didn't do their reasearch on their own site ... n00bs !!

Schmidt and Roos forgot about Soderstrom's article ...

This one is the cheapy Core2 latest - E2160.

These last two are good stories for those new to overclocking ... note TC is posting trying start another flame session ... childish.

Better to fry a cheap chip rather than a QX ...

The article is sound and good basic advice ...

Hope this helps ... :)








 
Good article, but not as good as it looks.

The total cost of the E2160, mobo, and PSU is $86+160+100 = $346. Get a E6850, cheap mobo, 480w PSU for $299+40+15 = $354. I can use cheapies for the E6850 because I'm saying stock speed for similar performance. Actually, there can be all kinds of variations for the same ballpark price/performance. For instance, you could do a E6750 no-OC for a little less performance, but save $100

What I'm mainly saying is when overclocking, the CPU may be cheap but there are considerable additional expenses (even excluding cooling) and intangables (CPU that won't OC much, voiding warrenty, shorter life, noisier fans, bother of finding right speeds) that have to be considered.

Even so, it's certainly important to know that the E2160 overclocks so well.
 


Huh?!? What?!? You could use the same PSU and Mobo for the cheap CPU and still be fine.
They were even using DDR2-667, so no savings in RAM either.

Your setup will cost $200 more.
They were not trying to build the cheapest machine.
They were doing benchmarks comparing two CPUs.
They used the Mobos and PSUs they had lying around.
For the most part, their Insurance company probably will not allow them to use $15 PSUs anyway.


 



Most people would make that assumption because you definately seem to go steady with Intel even though you claim a few flings with AMD. What we hate is not so important as what we write, would you not agree?. Fanboys represent a selective ability to remain uninformed and reflect immature viewpoint, so we should not be overly interested in what they say. Personally, I look for those who exhibit balance in thier postings as well as in thier builds.
 
What do you mean by balance in your builds?

Do you mean choosing to build some good and some bad?
I would prefer to make "Logical" builds that are well thought out.

If somebody put a $5, $10, and $20 bill on the table every day and said I could have "one" of them. To me it would make sense to take the $20 every day. I would not call myself a "fanboy" of the $20s. I would certainly take (5) $5s or (3) $10s before a $20.

Balance is neither logical nor based on sound reasoning.
The better choice often tends to remain the better choice.

It may be that every single review site on the Web is biased against Intel and posts faked review numbers. Sadly, even AMDZONE.com which makes no bones about being a "Fan" site does not post many reviews comparing AMD chips to Core2Duos.

On a very very tight budget, you can build a reasonable AMD system for about $50 less than a Core2Duo system. However, for $50 more than the cheapest X2 system you can put together, I can build an Intel system that is as fast or faster than a X2-6400+ system with the same components. And at this point the Intel system will use less power and run quiter.

That leaves the AMD systems to those with extremely minimal funds or those without basic computer knowledge about optimizing their system.

This also leaves the retail market as well. These systems simply run at default settings with little choice to optimize the box.

On the server side, AMD's memory numbers are great for Virtualization servers running software such as VMWare.

However, the majority of the people that post on this site do not fall into those categories. Hence, I would not intentionally suggest a build that does not fit their needs.
 

I could use the cheap mobo and PSU with the E2160, but not at 3.2GHz. When you overclock, you have a cheap CPU, but NEED more expensive other components.

The article says "It is possible to achieve good overclocking results with motherboards costing slightly above $100". I'm not doubting this, and would like to know which mobos, and would they achieve the quoted benchmarks, or just "good overclocking results"

Yes, the article used fairly inexpensive RAM, which is why I didn't factor this into my calcs.

They may have used components they have lieing around, but if the article is to be useful to others, we have to figure the comparative costs which WE will have to pay.
 


I'm sure some people enjoy going to the dentist too, what's your point? X2 5200+mobo = $190 Shipped via newegg. You try spending less than $190 on a E2160+mobo if it floats ur boat. But I dont want to get a call 2 months down the road with a complaint about blue screens of death! argh! I would rely on maybe 2.2 GHz, but anything more than that I would not trust enough to put my time on the line. The point is, why bother with overclocking when you dont need to? If you're on a budget AMD is simply better for any sane person. And anyone on a budget would buy an X2-4000 anyway. There is just no way to justify twice the price for only 25% more performance.
 


Simple - Any Motherboard that supports 1333FSB will do you fine which is the Mobo required for the E6750.
THG is not in the business of testing very low class Mobo's, so they were being "Safe".

Here is an $80 example -
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813127031
One reviewer is noting @3.2Ghz for the E2140 which is far more difficult to OC.

If you dont want to bother with rebates - $78 will do fine as well.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128061

The only boards noticably cheaper on NewEgg were the 945G Chipsets.
One of those only supported MAX of 2gb.
The other was ASROCK - Enough said.
In fact, there is a good chance that neither SYSTEM would even properly recognize the 1333 FSB chips.
These boards are quite old and I doubt the manufacturer's are wasting too much time on BIOS updates to ensure the new chips work well and stable.

Sorry, but I really fail to see where you are going to save enough to get an E6750.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom