Core E4300 or a X2 3600?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

The_YongGrand

Distinguished
May 3, 2007
15
0
18,510
0
LOL thats about the differance in a 8600GTS and a 8800GTS 320mb. Yes the system performance is major for a GPU change in game over a CPU change.
I'm not quite sure why you are so obsessed with the 8800GTS vs 8600GTS comparison.

You seem hell bent on comparing a X2 3600+ vs E4300 system at the same pricepoint. Why is that? I think it's clear to everyone that for a comparable config to an X2 platform, the C2D will cost $50 - $100 more. With that comes greater CPU performance. It's really quite simple, I'm quite amazed we are still discussing this topic.

And also, please note that I'm not using any kind of 8xxx series of video card there - I'm using the Galaxy Geforce 7300GT w/ DDR3 (premium). I just want some more boost in FPS, and also shorter loading times. That's all. If WinXP loads 2x faster, or my interneting becomes more responsive, that's it, I'm taking the C2D for sure.

I intend to use X2-3600 initially but you said it'll be a bottleneck if a DDR2-667 is used.

Actually both combo price are ALMOST the same if I want max performance:

C2D E4300 + board = around $170

X2 3600 + board + 1GB DDR800 stick = also around $170

I'm recycling my video card too. This card is okay so far.

And btw, you guys are correct, I'm a college kid somewhere in M'sia. Love those E6300s, but they cost a bomb. Imagine, US$170 for one E6300 isn't a small number in Malaysian ringgit. :D
 

epsilon84

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2006
1,689
0
19,780
0
LOL thats about the differance in a 8600GTS and a 8800GTS 320mb. Yes the system performance is major for a GPU change in game over a CPU change.
I'm not quite sure why you are so obsessed with the 8800GTS vs 8600GTS comparison.

You seem hell bent on comparing a X2 3600+ vs E4300 system at the same pricepoint. Why is that? I think it's clear to everyone that for a comparable config to an X2 platform, the C2D will cost $50 - $100 more. With that comes greater CPU performance. It's really quite simple, I'm quite amazed we are still discussing this topic.
Simple its about the same price differance of the X2 3600 and the E4300. God Epsilon84 you fall behind fast. Now is that $100 price worth 2~3 FPS? I say no and the OP should only base the CPU choice on map making.

Err... where did you pull that 2 - 3fps from? I play a lot of games, and I would say the extra money spent on the E4300 is well worth it for higher minimum framerates in games. The genre of games I play just happens to scale well with CPU speed, so in my situation, yes, the added expense is worth it.

I've already decided on the 8800GTS 320MB regardless of the CPU I get, because I believe it is the best value performance GPU atm.
 

epsilon84

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2006
1,689
0
19,780
0
LOL thats about the differance in a 8600GTS and a 8800GTS 320mb. Yes the system performance is major for a GPU change in game over a CPU change.
I'm not quite sure why you are so obsessed with the 8800GTS vs 8600GTS comparison.

You seem hell bent on comparing a X2 3600+ vs E4300 system at the same pricepoint. Why is that? I think it's clear to everyone that for a comparable config to an X2 platform, the C2D will cost $50 - $100 more. With that comes greater CPU performance. It's really quite simple, I'm quite amazed we are still discussing this topic.

And also, please note that I'm not using any kind of 8xxx series of video card there - I'm using the Galaxy Geforce 7300GT w/ DDR3 (premium). I just want some more boost in FPS, and also shorter loading times. That's all. If WinXP loads 2x faster, or my interneting becomes more responsive, that's it, I'm taking the C2D for sure.

I intend to use X2-3600 initially but you said it'll be a bottleneck if a DDR2-667 is used.

Actually both combo price are ALMOST the same if I want max performance:

C2D E4300 + board = around $170

X2 3600 + board + 1GB DDR800 stick = also around $170

I'm recycling my video card too. This card is okay so far.

And btw, you guys are correct, I'm a college kid somewhere in M'sia. Love those E6300s, but they cost a bomb. Imagine, US$170 for one E6300 isn't a small number in Malaysian ringgit. :D

You can still use DDR2-667 with the X2 3600+, it just takes a 5 - 10% performance hit compared to DDR2-800. It's not optimal, but you can still use it. I just wouldn't expect it to be that much faster than your P4 whilst running DDR2-667.

With the E4300 you lose virtually no performance vs DDR2-800, so you're making more efficient use of your old RAM.

Btw, with a 7300GT you may find yourself GPU bottlenecked, so I doubt the CPU upgrade would improve performance much. What resolution/details do you play at?
 
Come on Epsilon84 try and keep up. If you need me to agree with you find an Oblivion benchmark with X2 3600 and ill agree its bottlenecked. Now the reality check is even a 3 year old A64 didnt show to be CPU bound. I use a 1280X1024 CRT and see no CPU bounds unless I play Oblivion.
It's funny you say you are CPU bound in Oblivion, since it is far more GPU bound than HL2 ever was (or is). Are you sure you're not exceeding the 320MB memory with excessive AA?

Oblivion CPU scaling:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/geforce_8800_gtx_gts_amd_cpu_scaling/page11.asp
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/geforce_8800_gtx_gts_amd_cpu_scaling/page12.asp

I don't see much CPU bottlenecking on a 8800GTS I'm afraid. It's only evident on the 8800GTX.
Nice but though up a X6800 or a C2D at 3GHz and see benchmarks take a curve. True you can GPU bound Oblivion at high AA and AF. Guess this busts you ideal that a X2 3600 with a 8800 is a bad ideal. The X2 3800 does almost as good as a FX-62 so maybe the X2 3600 is the best CPU for gamming with a powerful GPU. Thanks that makes me fill better about my X2 3600.
 

zenmaster

Splendid
Feb 21, 2006
3,867
0
22,790
3
[quote="Elbert Thanks that makes me fill better about my X2 3600.[/quote]

Ah, That is the point of the thread.

Elbert only has a X2 3600 and looks at all the people with faster CPUs and is trying to find a way to feel better.

So it has nothing to do with graphics cards, FPS, price, etc...
It all has to do with the CPU that Elbert bought and why oh why did he not save up another $75 to get a processor as fast as the C2D.
 
LOL thats about the differance in a 8600GTS and a 8800GTS 320mb. Yes the system performance is major for a GPU change in game over a CPU change.
I'm not quite sure why you are so obsessed with the 8800GTS vs 8600GTS comparison.

You seem hell bent on comparing a X2 3600+ vs E4300 system at the same pricepoint. Why is that? I think it's clear to everyone that for a comparable config to an X2 platform, the C2D will cost $50 - $100 more. With that comes greater CPU performance. It's really quite simple, I'm quite amazed we are still discussing this topic.
Simple its about the same price differance of the X2 3600 and the E4300. God Epsilon84 you fall behind fast. Now is that $100 price worth 2~3 FPS? I say no and the OP should only base the CPU choice on map making.

Err... where did you pull that 2 - 3fps from? I play a lot of games, and I would say the extra money spent on the E4300 is well worth it for higher minimum framerates in games. The genre of games I play just happens to scale well with CPU speed, so in my situation, yes, the added expense is worth it.

I've already decided on the 8800GTS 320MB regardless of the CPU I get, because I believe it is the best value performance GPU atm.
For the 2~3 FPS check you last link where it shows no FPS differance. Cant agree with you more on the 8800GTS it is one killer deal at around 250~270. Now what if you had a choice between a e4300 with the 8600GTS or a X2 3600 with the 8800GTS? Same price per the combo I would pick the X2-3600 combo.
 

epsilon84

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2006
1,689
0
19,780
0
Come on Epsilon84 try and keep up. If you need me to agree with you find an Oblivion benchmark with X2 3600 and ill agree its bottlenecked. Now the reality check is even a 3 year old A64 didnt show to be CPU bound. I use a 1280X1024 CRT and see no CPU bounds unless I play Oblivion.
It's funny you say you are CPU bound in Oblivion, since it is far more GPU bound than HL2 ever was (or is). Are you sure you're not exceeding the 320MB memory with excessive AA?

Oblivion CPU scaling:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/geforce_8800_gtx_gts_amd_cpu_scaling/page11.asp
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/geforce_8800_gtx_gts_amd_cpu_scaling/page12.asp

I don't see much CPU bottlenecking on a 8800GTS I'm afraid. It's only evident on the 8800GTX.
Nice but though up a X6800 or a C2D at 3GHz and see benchmarks take a curve. True you can GPU bound Oblivion at high AA and AF. Guess this busts you ideal that a X2 3600 with a 8800 is a bad ideal. The X2 3800 does almost as good as a FX-62 so maybe the X2 3600 is the best CPU for gamming with a powerful GPU. Thanks that makes me fill better about my X2 3600.

God you are so full of it Elbert. How freaking egotistical are you? Must you always put words in people's mouths? It's just a discussion, you claimed you were CPU bound in Oblivion, the data from Firingsquad shows otherwise.

I stand by my point that the X2 3600+ is not the ideal CPU to match a 8800GTS. In certain games it will bottleneck the 8800GTS quite significantly.




I'm glad I made you 'feel better' about your X2 3600+, I wasn't aware you were so dissatisfied with it. :roll:

Hey, how about we bench HL2: Lost Coast once I get my E4300/8800GTS 320 rig up and running? I'm actually quite curious to see the difference, I believe it'll be a lot more than 2 - 3 fps as you claim. ;)
 
[quote="Elbert Thanks that makes me fill better about my X2 3600.
Ah, That is the point of the thread.

Elbert only has a X2 3600 and looks at all the people with faster CPUs and is trying to find a way to feel better.

So it has nothing to do with graphics cards, FPS, price, etc...
It all has to do with the CPU that Elbert bought and why oh why did he not save up another $75 to get a processor as fast as the C2D.[/quote]
Nope sorry this is my sons PC specs my system is a C1.8, FX5500, and 512mb of RAM. Before you ask the CPU isnt bound on HL2 either.
 

epsilon84

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2006
1,689
0
19,780
0
For the 2~3 FPS check you last link where it shows no FPS differance. Cant agree with you more on the 8800GTS it is one killer deal at around 250~270. Now what if you had a choice between a e4300 with the 8600GTS or a X2 3600 with the 8800GTS? Same price per the combo I would pick the X2-3600 combo.
I already answered that quesiton, TWICE. Read my earlier posts. ;)

Thankfully, my budget allows me to not put myself in such a position, and I can afford an E4300 + 8800GTS 320MB. To be honest, if given no choice I wouldn't really mind an X2 3600+ either, since it is no slouch once overclocked to 2.8 - 3GHz. It's just that the E4300 @ 3 - 3.5GHz is even faster, and since I'm already paying close to $1000 in upgrading my system, I'd take the faster E4300 for an extra $50.
 
Come on Epsilon84 try and keep up. If you need me to agree with you find an Oblivion benchmark with X2 3600 and ill agree its bottlenecked. Now the reality check is even a 3 year old A64 didnt show to be CPU bound. I use a 1280X1024 CRT and see no CPU bounds unless I play Oblivion.
It's funny you say you are CPU bound in Oblivion, since it is far more GPU bound than HL2 ever was (or is). Are you sure you're not exceeding the 320MB memory with excessive AA?

Oblivion CPU scaling:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/geforce_8800_gtx_gts_amd_cpu_scaling/page11.asp
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/geforce_8800_gtx_gts_amd_cpu_scaling/page12.asp

I don't see much CPU bottlenecking on a 8800GTS I'm afraid. It's only evident on the 8800GTX.
Nice but though up a X6800 or a C2D at 3GHz and see benchmarks take a curve. True you can GPU bound Oblivion at high AA and AF. Guess this busts you ideal that a X2 3600 with a 8800 is a bad ideal. The X2 3800 does almost as good as a FX-62 so maybe the X2 3600 is the best CPU for gamming with a powerful GPU. Thanks that makes me fill better about my X2 3600.

God you are so full of it Elbert. How freaking egotistical are you? Must you always put words in people's mouths? It's just a discussion, you claimed you were CPU bound in Oblivion, the data from Firingsquad shows otherwise.

I stand by my point that the X2 3600+ is not the ideal CPU to match a 8800GTS. In certain games it will bottleneck the 8800GTS quite significantly.




I'm glad I made you 'feel better' about your X2 3600+, I wasn't aware you were so dissatisfied with it. :roll:

Hey, how about we bench HL2: Lost Coast once I get my E4300/8800GTS 320 rig up and running? I'm actually quite curious to see the difference, I believe it'll be a lot more than 2 - 3 fps as you claim. ;)
I didnt claim but that I would agree with you that oblivion is CPU bound and who is putting words in the other mouth now? Stand by your word as I see your not buy a CPU most would suggest to pair up with the 8800. Let me guess your going to OC your E4300 and my son's CPU is already. Ive pushed the CPU to the max of the mobo with 300fsb, htt3, 533 memory set. That for $699 counting S&H. Now how much is your system going to cost? If your system costs a $1000 then it needs to show about %30 increase in FPS.

LOL learn to pick out things that dont contradict you view.

Looks to my like the GTX only need s X2 4600 to start making a differance and if my X2 3600 beats a FX62 with XTX then the GPU was the best choice.

P.S. Not dissatisfied just more pleased.
 
For the 2~3 FPS check you last link where it shows no FPS differance. Cant agree with you more on the 8800GTS it is one killer deal at around 250~270. Now what if you had a choice between a e4300 with the 8600GTS or a X2 3600 with the 8800GTS? Same price per the combo I would pick the X2-3600 combo.
I already answered that quesiton, TWICE. Read my earlier posts. ;)

Thankfully, my budget allows me to not put myself in such a position, and I can afford an E4300 + 8800GTS 320MB. To be honest, if given no choice I wouldn't really mind an X2 3600+ either, since it is no slouch once overclocked to 2.8 - 3GHz. It's just that the E4300 @ 3 - 3.5GHz is even faster, and since I'm already paying close to $1000 in upgrading my system, I'd take the faster E4300 for an extra $50.
How much more for a good OCing mobo to hit those OC's. LOL I can hit 2.7 with this X2 without upping the voltage with a $55 mobo.
 

epsilon84

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2006
1,689
0
19,780
0
For the 2~3 FPS check you last link where it shows no FPS differance. Cant agree with you more on the 8800GTS it is one killer deal at around 250~270. Now what if you had a choice between a e4300 with the 8600GTS or a X2 3600 with the 8800GTS? Same price per the combo I would pick the X2-3600 combo.
I already answered that quesiton, TWICE. Read my earlier posts. ;)

Thankfully, my budget allows me to not put myself in such a position, and I can afford an E4300 + 8800GTS 320MB. To be honest, if given no choice I wouldn't really mind an X2 3600+ either, since it is no slouch once overclocked to 2.8 - 3GHz. It's just that the E4300 @ 3 - 3.5GHz is even faster, and since I'm already paying close to $1000 in upgrading my system, I'd take the faster E4300 for an extra $50.
How much more for a good OCing mobo to hit those OC's. LOL I can hit 2.7 with this X2 with a $55 mobo.

LOL well I got my Asus P5B Deluxe a few months ago for $50 off the normal retail price (one time special) so in my case it is a bit different and I don't want to compare my board with your $55 board, no offence intended but they are not in the same league. ;)

I've just been waiting for the E4300 pricedrop, 8800GTS 320MB release and finally RAM prices to come down to earth. Everything is finally falling into place and I am ready to build this weekend. 8) :D

Anyway, to answer your quesiton, if I didn't nab the P5B Deluxe on special I would've probably opted for a Gigabyte S3 instead, you don't really need a super mobo to overclock an E4300 since the 9x multi doesn't require hefty FSB speeds to achieve high overclocks. I also saved a bit on the memory compared to an AM2 system, since 'only' DDR2-667 is required to hit 3GHz. I will be purchasing A-Data DDR2-667, it's pretty cheap but it's enough to do the job, since C2D doesn't really scale with high end RAM anyway.

Like I said, after doing my sums the end price wouldn't have been much more than $US50. I should mention I generally don't buy $55 mobos for overclocking though... ;)
 
For the 2~3 FPS check you last link where it shows no FPS differance. Cant agree with you more on the 8800GTS it is one killer deal at around 250~270. Now what if you had a choice between a e4300 with the 8600GTS or a X2 3600 with the 8800GTS? Same price per the combo I would pick the X2-3600 combo.
I already answered that quesiton, TWICE. Read my earlier posts. ;)

Thankfully, my budget allows me to not put myself in such a position, and I can afford an E4300 + 8800GTS 320MB. To be honest, if given no choice I wouldn't really mind an X2 3600+ either, since it is no slouch once overclocked to 2.8 - 3GHz. It's just that the E4300 @ 3 - 3.5GHz is even faster, and since I'm already paying close to $1000 in upgrading my system, I'd take the faster E4300 for an extra $50.
How much more for a good OCing mobo to hit those OC's. LOL I can hit 2.7 with this X2 with a $55 mobo.

LOL well I got my Asus P5B Deluxe a few months ago for $50 off the normal retail price (one time special) so in my case it is a bit different and I don't want to compare my board with your $55 board, no offence intended but they are not in the same league. ;)

I've just been waiting for the E4300 pricedrop, 8800GTS 320MB release and finally RAM prices to come down to earth. Everything is finally falling into place and I am ready to build this weekend. 8) :D

Anyway, to answer your quesiton, if I didn't nab the P5B Deluxe on special I would've probably opted for a Gigabyte S3 instead, you don't really need a super mobo to overclock an E4300 since the 9x multi doesn't require hefty FSB speeds to achieve high overclocks. I also saved a bit on the memory compared to an AM2 system, since 'only' DDR2-667 is required to hit 3GHz.

Like I said, after doing my sums the end price wouldn't have been much more than $US50. I should mention I generally don't buy $55 mobos for overclocking though... ;)
Not in the same league I see. Guess that P5B holds 32GB's of RAM then. I dont buy mobo's that cost more than my CPU as many would say thats a bad match. Price in memory for the DDR800 is under $100 for 2GB's so your not going to save much that way. LOL cant wait till you upgrade and can only find DDR2-800 as thats what all the OCers are using.
 

epsilon84

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2006
1,689
0
19,780
0
LOL I will refrain from using derogatory terms towards your mobo and ECS in general... but you are out of your mind if you think your ECS mobo is 'equal' to my Asus P5B Deluxe. ROFL I'm sorry, yes, they are not in the same league. LOL :wink:

Anyway, in Australia 2GB of DDR2-800 costs about $50 more (~$US40) than DDR2-667.

cant wait till you upgrade and can only find DDR2-800 as thats what all the OCers are using.
WTF? That doesn't make sense. I don't need DDR2-800 for overclocking the E4300. It's an added expense that is of no use in my situation. :roll:
 
LOL I will refrain from using derogatory terms towards your mobo and ECS in general... but you are out of your mind if you think your ECS mobo is 'equal' to my Asus P5B Deluxe. ROFL I'm sorry, yes, they are not in the same league. LOL :wink:

Anyway, in Australia 2GB of DDR2-800 costs about $50 more (~$US40) than DDR2-667.

cant wait till you upgrade and can only find DDR2-800 as thats what all the OCers are using.
WTF? That doesn't make sense. I don't need DDR2-800 for overclocking the E4300. It's an added expense that is of no use in my situation. :roll:
Cool lock yourself to only a 3GHz OC as your 667 will limit. Guess what when your memory is set to DDR2-400 and you hit about an increase of 90FSB. Your almost at your memorys limit and your OCing will stop at that point. I have a 9.5 multiplyer and my limit hits around 50fsb before i have to change down to a lower spec. I'm guessing here that your lowest memory setting is DDR2-400? If so your looking at under a 100MHz increase in FSB and that would be shame seeing as how your mobo should do 150MHz increase.
 

epsilon84

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2006
1,689
0
19,780
0
Cool lock yourself to only a 3GHz OC as your 667 will limit. Guess what when your memory is set to DDR2-400 and you hit about an increase of 90FSB. Your almost at your memorys limit and your OCing will stop at that point. I have a 9.5 multiplyer and my limit hits around 50fsb before i have to change down to a lower spec. I'm guessing here that your lowest memory setting is DDR2-400? If so your looking at under a 100MHz increase in FSB and that would be shame seeing as how your mobo should do 150MHz increase.
LOL you really have no clue do you. Do you really expect my DDR2-667 to not go ONE SINGLE MHz above stock speeds, even with raised VDIMM?! LOL

There is a thing called RAM overclocking too, in case you forgot. ;)

I ain't gonna spend an extra $AU50 on DDR2-800 by the off chance that I can run the RAM at stock speeds by getting a 100% 3.6GHz overclock on the E4300... it's possible but unlikely.

Saving $50 whilst expecting to get a 'modest' 3.2GHz overclock, whilst slightly overclocking the RAM, makes a lot more financial sense to me.

Edit - Anyway, it's getting late here, I'm off to bed. Thanks for the debate, I'll be up for another round in the morning should you feel inclined. LOL :wink:
 
Cool lock yourself to only a 3GHz OC as your 667 will limit. Guess what when your memory is set to DDR2-400 and you hit about an increase of 90FSB. Your almost at your memorys limit and your OCing will stop at that point. I have a 9.5 multiplyer and my limit hits around 50fsb before i have to change down to a lower spec. I'm guessing here that your lowest memory setting is DDR2-400? If so your looking at under a 100MHz increase in FSB and that would be shame seeing as how your mobo should do 150MHz increase.
LOL you really have no clue do you. Do you really expect my DDR2-667 to not go ONE SINGLE MHz above stock speeds, even with raised VDIMM?! LOL

There is a thing called RAM overclocking too, in case you forgot. ;)

I ain't gonna spend an extra $AU50 on DDR2-800 by the off chance that I can run the RAM at stock speeds by getting a 100% 3.6GHz overclock on the E4300... it's possible but unlikely.

Saving $50 whilst expecting to get a 'modest' 3.2GHz overclock, whilst slightly overclocking the RAM, makes a lot more financial sense to me.

Edit - Anyway, it's getting late here, I'm off to bed. Thanks for the debate, I'll be up for another round in the morning should you feel inclined. LOL :wink:
LOL I was counting a OCed memory if it doesnt you want hit 3GHz.
 

epsilon84

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2006
1,689
0
19,780
0
Cool lock yourself to only a 3GHz OC as your 667 will limit. Guess what when your memory is set to DDR2-400 and you hit about an increase of 90FSB. Your almost at your memorys limit and your OCing will stop at that point. I have a 9.5 multiplyer and my limit hits around 50fsb before i have to change down to a lower spec. I'm guessing here that your lowest memory setting is DDR2-400? If so your looking at under a 100MHz increase in FSB and that would be shame seeing as how your mobo should do 150MHz increase.
LOL you really have no clue do you. Do you really expect my DDR2-667 to not go ONE SINGLE MHz above stock speeds, even with raised VDIMM?! LOL

There is a thing called RAM overclocking too, in case you forgot. ;)

I ain't gonna spend an extra $AU50 on DDR2-800 by the off chance that I can run the RAM at stock speeds by getting a 100% 3.6GHz overclock on the E4300... it's possible but unlikely.

Saving $50 whilst expecting to get a 'modest' 3.2GHz overclock, whilst slightly overclocking the RAM, makes a lot more financial sense to me.

Edit - Anyway, it's getting late here, I'm off to bed. Thanks for the debate, I'll be up for another round in the morning should you feel inclined. LOL :wink:
LOL I was counting a OCed memory if it doesnt you want hit 3GHz.

Just FYI:

9 x 333 = 3GHz. 333MHz FSB = DDR2-667 @ stock using 1:1 ratio. Thus 3GHz on an E4300 would have DDR2-667 running at stock speeds. 8)

Gnite. :wink:
 

Gary_Busey

Distinguished
Mar 21, 2006
1,380
0
19,280
0
I was under the impression that one of the big selling points about the e4300 was that it overclocks well even will slower ram and that it's not very picky about which ram it's paired with, in general.
 
Cool lock yourself to only a 3GHz OC as your 667 will limit. Guess what when your memory is set to DDR2-400 and you hit about an increase of 90FSB. Your almost at your memorys limit and your OCing will stop at that point. I have a 9.5 multiplyer and my limit hits around 50fsb before i have to change down to a lower spec. I'm guessing here that your lowest memory setting is DDR2-400? If so your looking at under a 100MHz increase in FSB and that would be shame seeing as how your mobo should do 150MHz increase.
LOL you really have no clue do you. Do you really expect my DDR2-667 to not go ONE SINGLE MHz above stock speeds, even with raised VDIMM?! LOL

There is a thing called RAM overclocking too, in case you forgot. ;)

I ain't gonna spend an extra $AU50 on DDR2-800 by the off chance that I can run the RAM at stock speeds by getting a 100% 3.6GHz overclock on the E4300... it's possible but unlikely.

Saving $50 whilst expecting to get a 'modest' 3.2GHz overclock, whilst slightly overclocking the RAM, makes a lot more financial sense to me.

Edit - Anyway, it's getting late here, I'm off to bed. Thanks for the debate, I'll be up for another round in the morning should you feel inclined. LOL :wink:
LOL I was counting a OCed memory if it doesnt you want hit 3GHz.

Just FYI:

9 x 333 = 3GHz. 333MHz FSB = DDR2-667 @ stock using 1:1 ratio. Thus 3GHz on an E4300 would have DDR2-667 running at stock speeds. 8)

Gnite. :wink:
Just odd to buy a top mobo leaving about ~40fsb by cripply it with under achieving memory. Im sure their are cheaper mobos what would fit that spec maybe in the $70 range. At 667 even cheap memory may fry as most mobos dont run the memory to spec. My mobos auto setup run my ddr2-800 memory at 773. When my memory hits 784 or higher it fails in prime95. Some OCers have problems as low as 2.45 with E4300 so many of which use 667 memory.
 

1Tanker

Splendid
Apr 28, 2006
4,645
0
22,780
0
Cool lock yourself to only a 3GHz OC as your 667 will limit. Guess what when your memory is set to DDR2-400 and you hit about an increase of 90FSB. Your almost at your memorys limit and your OCing will stop at that point. I have a 9.5 multiplyer and my limit hits around 50fsb before i have to change down to a lower spec. I'm guessing here that your lowest memory setting is DDR2-400? If so your looking at under a 100MHz increase in FSB and that would be shame seeing as how your mobo should do 150MHz increase.
LOL you really have no clue do you. Do you really expect my DDR2-667 to not go ONE SINGLE MHz above stock speeds, even with raised VDIMM?! LOL

There is a thing called RAM overclocking too, in case you forgot. ;)

I ain't gonna spend an extra $AU50 on DDR2-800 by the off chance that I can run the RAM at stock speeds by getting a 100% 3.6GHz overclock on the E4300... it's possible but unlikely.

Saving $50 whilst expecting to get a 'modest' 3.2GHz overclock, whilst slightly overclocking the RAM, makes a lot more financial sense to me.

Edit - Anyway, it's getting late here, I'm off to bed. Thanks for the debate, I'll be up for another round in the morning should you feel inclined. LOL :wink:
LOL I was counting a OCed memory if it doesnt you want hit 3GHz.

Just FYI:

9 x 333 = 3GHz. 333MHz FSB = DDR2-667 @ stock using 1:1 ratio. Thus 3GHz on an E4300 would have DDR2-667 running at stock speeds. 8)

Gnite. :wink:
Just odd to buy a top mobo leaving about ~40fsb by cripply it with under achieving memory. Im sure their are cheaper mobos what would fit that spec maybe in the $70 range. At 667 even cheap memory may fry as most mobos dont run the memory to spec. My mobos auto setup run my ddr2-800 memory at 773. When my memory hits 784 or higher it fails in prime95. Some OCers have problems as low as 2.45 with E4300 so many of which use 667 memory.Go back and read....he said he bought the P5B, because it was on sale for $50 off. :roll:
 

epsilon84

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2006
1,689
0
19,780
0
Just odd to buy a top mobo leaving about ~40fsb by cripply it with under achieving memory. Im sure their are cheaper mobos what would fit that spec maybe in the $70 range. At 667 even cheap memory may fry as most mobos dont run the memory to spec. My mobos auto setup run my ddr2-800 memory at 773. When my memory hits 784 or higher it fails in prime95. Some OCers have problems as low as 2.45 with E4300 so many of which use 667 memory.
WTF now you are just blabbing out random thoughts...

As I already said, I got a $50 discount on the P5B Deluxe, I essentially paid the price of a mid range P965 and got a high end board instead, what is not to like? I could sell it today on Ebay and not make a loss on it, but I'd rather keep it. :D

Yeah there are cheaper mobos around, like I said if the P5B Deluxe wasn't on special I would've opted for a cheaper mobo. ;)

" At 667 even cheap memory may fry as most mobos dont run the memory to spec."

WTF?! Err... I don't know about your board, but the P5B Deluxe runs the RAM @ EXACTLY the clockspeed/timings/voltage that you set in BIOS.

Like I said, I would only be exceeding DDR2-667 speeds when I exceed 3GHz, and most E4300s I've seen average around 3.2GHz - 3.3GHz, which would equate to DDR2-710 - DDR2-732 speeds. Unless I have incredibly bad luck, I will have no problem hitting these speeds with DDR2-667, in fact I believe I don't even have to raise VDIMM for such mild memory overclocking, but we'll see anyway.

I find it rather funny you trying to poke holes in my purchase plans, but believe me, this has been months in the planning, I'm a long time overclocker and I know what I'm doing. :wink:

Finally, I'm sorry your DDR2-800 can't even run at stock speeds, did you ever think about RMAing it? It definitely should NOT fail Prime95 below stock speeds. :!:
 

The_YongGrand

Distinguished
May 3, 2007
15
0
18,510
0
LOL thats about the differance in a 8600GTS and a 8800GTS 320mb. Yes the system performance is major for a GPU change in game over a CPU change.
I'm not quite sure why you are so obsessed with the 8800GTS vs 8600GTS comparison.

You seem hell bent on comparing a X2 3600+ vs E4300 system at the same pricepoint. Why is that? I think it's clear to everyone that for a comparable config to an X2 platform, the C2D will cost $50 - $100 more. With that comes greater CPU performance. It's really quite simple, I'm quite amazed we are still discussing this topic.

And also, please note that I'm not using any kind of 8xxx series of video card there - I'm using the Galaxy Geforce 7300GT w/ DDR3 (premium). I just want some more boost in FPS, and also shorter loading times. That's all. If WinXP loads 2x faster, or my interneting becomes more responsive, that's it, I'm taking the C2D for sure.

I intend to use X2-3600 initially but you said it'll be a bottleneck if a DDR2-667 is used.

Actually both combo price are ALMOST the same if I want max performance:

C2D E4300 + board = around $170

X2 3600 + board + 1GB DDR800 stick = also around $170

I'm recycling my video card too. This card is okay so far.

And btw, you guys are correct, I'm a college kid somewhere in M'sia. Love those E6300s, but they cost a bomb. Imagine, US$170 for one E6300 isn't a small number in Malaysian ringgit. :D

You can still use DDR2-667 with the X2 3600+, it just takes a 5 - 10% performance hit compared to DDR2-800. It's not optimal, but you can still use it. I just wouldn't expect it to be that much faster than your P4 whilst running DDR2-667.

With the E4300 you lose virtually no performance vs DDR2-800, so you're making more efficient use of your old RAM.

Btw, with a 7300GT you may find yourself GPU bottlenecked, so I doubt the CPU upgrade would improve performance much. What resolution/details do you play at?

Hi,

My game res is at 1024x768, but also a small step higher than 1024x768 since I'm using a plain CRT monitor only. Details? All high, AA 4x, AF 8x. I can always tune down to AA 2x, AF 4x but they look the same to me cause the FPS didn't drop at all. Strange as it seems. :D
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS