Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

X2 4200 or the e6300

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 25, 2007 11:32:39 PM

I've been looking at the x2 4200 for a while now but I recently heard that the e6300 is better. In canadian money at a local store I can get the X2 4200 for 200$ or the e6300 for 240$. The e6300 is 40 $ and has a slower clockrate (2.2Ghz Vs. 1.86Ghz). I've heard that the e6300 can overclock well, up to 2.5Ghz and ends up almost faster AMD's FX-62 in benchmarks. Thats with stock heatsink too, totaly stable. so for the 40$ more do you guys think it's worth it? Even at stock speeds the e6300 wins.
Heres the review I read: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=280...
The only thing i don't like about this review is that it doesn't say how the overclocked AM2's do.

Please tell me the better features about the x2 4200 and the better features of the e6300 and which one results overall to being a better CPU.

More about : 4200 e6300

February 25, 2007 11:47:08 PM

Quote:
I've been looking at the x2 4200 for a while now but I recently heard that the e6300 is better. In canadian money at a local store I can get the X2 4200 for 200$ or the e6300 for 240$. The e6300 is 40 $ and has a slower clockrate (2.2Ghz Vs. 1.86Ghz). I've heard that the e6300 can overclock well, up to 2.5Ghz and ends up almost faster AMD's FX-62 in benchmarks. Thats with stock heatsink too, totaly stable. so for the 40$ more do you guys think it's worth it? Even at stock speeds the e6300 wins.
Heres the review I read: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=280...
The only thing i don't like about this review is that it doesn't say how the overclocked AM2's do.

Please tell me the better features about the x2 4200 and the better features of the e6300 and which one results overall to being a better CPU.



Intel E-6300 may have a lower clock rate but handles data at a faster rate than the X2-4200. The Intel is faster and over clocks better than X2-4200. If you are into over clocking the Intel E4300 over clocks better and is cheaper(not by much) than either of the CPU's you mentioned. Intel is proposing price cuts in April the E-4300 should be around $113.00 US

hope this helps
__________________
”No matter where you go or what you do, you live your entire life within the confines of your head”. ~Terry Josephson
February 25, 2007 11:53:14 PM

Not all of E6300 can overclock well.Only some of them can.
And if you want to overclock E6300,you must have a strong motherboard,it will cost you much,such as ASUS P5B PLus.
Considering the total cost,I think 4200+ is better.
Related resources
February 25, 2007 11:56:08 PM

Actually the E6300 @2.5ghz is a rather moderate OC. Many people have gotten 2.8 easily and 3+ghz on air. The 4200+ is a good processor also, and i know with the 3800+ (@2.0ghz stock), 2.8 isnt uncommon for an OC. Intel's C2D line currently does more IPCs (Instructions Per Cycle- refering to effeciency) than AMD (When Intel was using P4/PDs with netburst architecture, it was the other way around). What i mean is that clock speeds are only comparable within a family. At stock speeds, I would say an E6300 (1.86) and a Socket AM2 Athlon 64 x2 4600+ (2.4) are pretty comperable. So at stock the e6300 should beat the 4200+ The benefits of the C2D are shared L2, Good OC-ability, and currently more IPCs than AMD. Amd still has a decent chip, and their integrated memory controllet is still a plus in my book, decent OC, and right now good competetive price points. I dont think you can go wrong with either. My gf has the 4200+ and I have the E6300 and they are both great chips- just depends on if what you do on the computer I guess.
February 26, 2007 12:01:24 AM

If you're comfortable overclocking, I'd say the E4300 is the best choice for you. If not the E6300 and X2 4200+ would perform almost exactly the same.
February 26, 2007 12:09:36 AM

I have the x2 4200, today I played starlancer while I was pirates of the carribean2 to mpeg2, and the 6300 is even better. i say either way you win.
In the words od humpty(digital underground) "Do what you like!"
February 26, 2007 12:11:23 AM

I must admit hough, although i bitch about am2 processor lacking the power of core 2, I still prefer the variety of chipsets for amd.
February 26, 2007 1:03:11 AM

Quote:
Not all of E6300 can overclock well.Only some of them can.
And if you want to overclock E6300,you must have a strong motherboard,it will cost you much,such as ASUS P5B PLus.
Considering the total cost,I think 4200+ is better.


Your chances of NOT being able to get a e6300 to 2.5 GHz or more (where the C2D easily beats the FX-62 in most benchmarks) are very slim. I'm sure that there are quite a few that won't go past 3 GHz, but moderate overclocks are pretty easy.

As for the motherboard, you certainly don't need something as expensive as an ASUS P5B [Deluxe] (CAN$223). There's no reason why a cheaper board, such as the http://www.pccyber.com/scrItem.asp?product_subtypes_id=..." target="_blank">GA-965P-S3, (CAN$146) shouldn't reach up to and higher than 350 or 400 MHz FSB.

As others have said, if you want to use overclocking to get value for your dollar, then the e4300 is a good place to start. If I were getting a new system today, it'd be the e4300 with the Gigabyte or similar board.

As for overclocking the 4200+, I haven't found nearly as much information on that. I am trying to collect more data for the price/performance charts I make, so anyone that can provide links to overclocked 4200+ data would be appreciated.
February 26, 2007 1:09:48 AM

Ok i've got a motherboard for both of these tell me which you thinks better combo.

INTEL
http://www.cuttingedgecomputers.ca/shopexd.asp?id=1585 < CPU
http://www.cuttingedgecomputers.ca/shopexd.asp?id=1631 < MOBO

AMD
http://www.cuttingedgecomputers.ca/shopexd.asp?id=1384 < CPU
http://www.cuttingedgecomputers.ca/shopexd.asp?id=1358 < MOBO

AMD total: $390.98
Intel total: $383.98

Intel comes out cheaper, though for some reason I'm still pulled towards the AMD, what do you guys think?
February 26, 2007 1:13:38 AM

From what i understand... 6300 WILL win, check THG CPU charts?

ATM Intel have WAY more OC head room vs ATI.
Check the e4300 also. Its what im getting, and i intend to OC it like krazy.
The 4300 can also oc higher with slower ram vx 6300.
February 26, 2007 1:16:15 AM

Can you please tell me what the difference between the e6300 and the e4300

Thanks,

Odet
February 26, 2007 1:22:03 AM

The difference is that the e6300 comes with stock settings for a 266 MHz front-side bus (FSB) and a CPU multiplier of 7, which gives a final CPU frequency of 1862 MHz. The e4300 comes with stock settings for a 200 MHz FSB and a multiplier of 9, for a CPU frequency of 1800 MHz.

The reason the e4300 should be easier to overclock is that you don't have to push your motherboard as hard to get the CPU frequency higher. The CPU multipliers are locked, so the only way to increase CPU frequency is to increase the FSB frequency. Sometimes the maximum overclock you can reach is limited by the motherboard, and sometimes it's limited by the CPU. With the e4300, you have a good chance of finding the fastest the CPU will go before your motherboard hits its limit.
February 26, 2007 1:31:16 AM

Quote:
From what i understand... 6300 WILL win, check THG CPU charts?

ATM Intel have WAY more OC head room vs ATI.
Check the e4300 also. Its what im getting, and i intend to OC it like krazy.
The 4300 can also oc higher with slower ram vx 6300.


The E6300 isn't on the THG CPU comparison charts .

___________________
”No matter where you go or what you do, you live your entire life within the confines of your head”. ~Terry Josephson
February 26, 2007 1:36:11 AM

Quote:
Can you please tell me what the difference between the e6300 and the e4300

Thanks,

Odet


The E6300 comes stock with 1066 mhz FSB. the E4300 with 800 mhz FSB.
If I am not mistaken the multiplier on E6300 is locked while the E4300 is not.
You guys correct me if I'm wrong.


_________________
”No matter where you go or what you do, you live your entire life within the confines of your head”. ~Terry Josephson
February 26, 2007 1:37:08 AM

Quote:
The E6300 isn't on the THG CPU comparison charts .


This is true, but if you want to see what I've compiled from a host of other sites, see this thread.
February 26, 2007 1:38:38 AM

Quote:
Ok i've got a motherboard for both of these tell me which you thinks better combo.

INTEL
http://www.cuttingedgecomputers.ca/shopexd.asp?id=1585 < CPU
http://www.cuttingedgecomputers.ca/shopexd.asp?id=1631 < MOBO

AMD
http://www.cuttingedgecomputers.ca/shopexd.asp?id=1384 < CPU
http://www.cuttingedgecomputers.ca/shopexd.asp?id=1358 < MOBO

AMD total: $390.98
Intel total: $383.98

Intel comes out cheaper, though for some reason I'm still pulled towards the AMD, what do you guys think?


Would I also have to upgrade my Ram? I have 1gb(512x2). one stick is pc3200 and one's pc2700. So the e4300 will be easier for overclocking because you only have to push the FSB up, no changing multipliers and such? I can just keep pushing the FSB up untill i get 2.5GHZ? The ONLY difference between the e4300 and the 6300 is that the 6300 starts out a little higher then the 4300? If so please reply thanks

**EDIT** oh someone answered my questions while i was typing this, ok. So all in all the e4300 is a better choice, would i have to change the multipliers or just simply increase the FSB, thanks
February 26, 2007 1:41:14 AM

You can get motherboards that work with the new processor and old RAM. I believe Asrock has one. If you very much want to stick with your old DDR (vs. DDR2) RAM, then you might consider the AMD socket 939, but beware that no new processors are coming out for this platform.
February 26, 2007 1:46:49 AM

Yeah, i think going with a good motherboard that will still have CPU's coming out for a few more years to come would be a smarter choice...
So I'd have to get new Ram? I've seen onsale DDr2 512mb ram for 40$ so I geuss i should pick up two sticks of those. Now this may be a dumb question but i've heard different things about it so im just a little confused... now theres 2 Mem. slots on my MoBo, but on the newer ones theres 4, can you use all of those slots or only 2? like can you go 512x4 or what thanks? Don't know if you caught this other question,
"So all in all the e4300 is a better choice, would i have to change the multipliers or just simply increase the FSB, thanks"
February 26, 2007 2:01:34 AM

Quote:
Actually the E6300 @2.5ghz is a rather moderate OC. Many people have gotten 2.8 easily and 3+ghz on air. The 4200+ is a good processor also, and i know with the 3800+ (@2.0ghz stock), 2.8 isnt uncommon for an OC. Intel's C2D line currently does more IPCs (Instructions Per Cycle- refering to effeciency) than AMD (When Intel was using P4/PDs with netburst architecture, it was the other way around). What i mean is that clock speeds are only comparable within a family. At stock speeds, I would say an E6300 (1.86) and a Socket AM2 Athlon 64 x2 4600+ (2.4) are pretty comperable. So at stock the e6300 should beat the 4200+ The benefits of the C2D are shared L2, Good OC-ability, and currently more IPCs than AMD. Amd still has a decent chip, and their integrated memory controllet is still a plus in my book, decent OC, and right now good competetive price points. I dont think you can go wrong with either. My gf has the 4200+ and I have the E6300 and they are both great chips- just depends on if what you do on the computer I guess.



The above post is good - you can get 2.6-2.8ghz with 1.4v (asus probe real Vcore (voltage) is probably 1.37v +/- 0.2v) - with a $25 thermalright cooler with 1800 rpm fan (near silent) my e6300 is set for 385fsb @2.7ghz at 32c! Sure I could try for 3 ghz and crank up the volts - but why - its runs so much better then the am2 4200+ i have right here next me.

I just turned on stablity test the temp jumped to 34 c at 50% load at full load 100% on the task manager the temp is after 10 mins - 38c.

"not all e6300 overclock well!" lol you got documentation on this?

It could be true but i think you full of it. if you talking about 3-3.2ghz thats not how you set up systems. THg article on the e6300 beating the x6800, is decpetive, but as far as beating 4200+ no contest!

e6300 should run at 2.6-2.8ghz -if can not make 2.5ghz - ebay it!

Any e6300 will 2.5-2.6ghz any e6300 will beat any 4200+ if properly set up. These forums are tainted with amd IT fantics.


if you need help setting it up email me for free help!
http://www.warpedsystems.net/contactus.html

IFB (amti is always #2)
February 26, 2007 2:01:37 AM

For any of the non-extreme processors, the multiplier is locked, so you can only increase speed by increasing the FSB setting on the motherboard.

As for the RAM, if you are looking to get two 512MB sticks then buy a matched pair and run them in dual-channel mode. Make sure the sticks are in colour-matched slots on the processor and during POST you should see a message like "dual channel interleaved".

As for having 4 slots, yes you can use them all. I started with 2x512 in dual-channel mode, and then I upgraded by adding another 2x512. My total number of channels is still two, but I have twice the capacity for running very demanding tasks. Getting whatever RAM you want now to fit in two slots is a good idea, so that later you can easily upgrade without throwing away your previous investment. Later on you can get 2x1024MB sticks for a total of 3GB, which is very respectable.
February 26, 2007 2:02:03 AM

My god.
In China,both P5B and 965-s3 are expensive for us.......
February 26, 2007 2:03:22 AM

i believe its locked only 1 way - you can lower it but you can raise it above the default - just like the p4 560 etc.
February 26, 2007 2:06:09 AM

This is true, but I don't know why you'd reduce the multiplier (it goes as low as 6 I think) in an overclocking attempt. Maybe you would if you wanted to stability test your motherboard's maximum FSB. In any case, I was careful to state that the only way to increase CPU speed on locked processors is to increase FSB, which remains true.
February 26, 2007 2:27:44 AM

Ok i geuss I'm convinced about going with an intel. My current is amd anthlon 2800+ and i have an Intel not sure what it is, there both clocked at 2.13GHz stock i have them both running at 2.26 and the Amd runs faster so thats why i was gonna stick with AMD. So i should go for e4300 and not pay 20$ more for the e6300? There both the same sockets, 775, so now for a motherboard. I thought the "Asus P5NSLI Conroe S775 NF 570 SLI" mainly because of the SLI, two PCI-E x16 slots. The video cards have to be identical correct? I don't think i said it earlier but I'm building this pc for gaming, games such as oblivion.
Heres what it is, from Newegg because they have more info about the products but it's not where i'm buying it from

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...

Heres where im buying it from if you think i should get a different product then look here.

http://www.cuttingedgecomputers.ca/shopexd.asp?id=1631
February 26, 2007 3:07:41 AM

Hmmm... I really don't know much about the performance of the nvidia 570i chipset. If it's rated for 266 FSB then it must do at least that, so you'll get an e4300 processor to 2.46 GHz at a minimum. That's pretty good power for games these days.

What video cards are you looking to put in SLI? Are you buying new ones or do you have the cards already? I think that at the moment, the best performance/$ comes from the higher-end single card setups. For instance, the x1950xt has a lot of power. On nvidia's side, if you're putting out enough money for sli then chances are you can afford an 8800 GTS if not the GTX variety.

Going with a single card has advantages. It should be cheaper to upgrade later, and you have a lot more flexibility in the motherboard selection. If you're able to consider a single GPU solution, then you can get a P965 board that will overclock much better than the 570i.
a c 99 à CPUs
February 26, 2007 3:09:35 AM

The two chips perform roughly equally at stock speeds, so here are the pros of each chip:

Athlon 64 X2 4200+
1. The E6300 costs 20% more than the X2 4200+ yet performs similarly.
2. An AM2 motherboard of equivalent feature set and quality will be about $20 less expensive than an Intel socket 775 unit. Also, there is very little CPU performance difference between a cheap AM2 board and an expensive one since the memory controller is in the chip. This is not true for Intel-compatible motherboards, where the chipset can make a significant difference in performance.
3. The standard 89W 90 nm 4200+ runs roughly as warm as the E6300 at full load. However, the 65W versions of the 4200+ are little if any more expensive than the 89W one and will run much cooler. Also, ANY of the AMD chips will run cooler at idle since all AMD X2s can significantly reduce clock speed at idle (to 1 GHz) whereas the E6300 can drop only one multiplier notch, to 1.6 GHz.
4. Every Athlon 64 CPU has all lower multipliers unlocked down to 4x in half-step increments, whereas you may be able to get 6x unlocked on the E6300 if you buy a board that allows for this "hack."
5. There is a greater range of decent chipsets at reasonable prices (<$200 board price) for AMD CPUs than there are for Intel CPUs. If you want a board in the $80-120 range, you pretty much have the Intel 945 and 965 on the Intel side whereas you can get NVIDIA's NForce 4, NForce 550, 570, 570 SLi and also the ATi Xpress 200 and the CrossFire 1600 and 3100.
6. The X2 4200+ has better overclocking potential with the recommended-speed RAM as the DDR2-800 it uses allows for more lower memory dividers than the DDR2-533 that FSB 1066 Intel chips use. Once could jack the LDT bus up to many hundreds of MHz if one wants to.

Core 2 Duo E6300
1. On a good board, an overclocked E6300 will beat an overclocked X2 4200+. It's pretty easy to get 2.4 GHz out of the E6300 on stock cooling, and some people above mentioned that they've done 2.5-2.7 GHz on stock cooling as well. An X2 4200+ will generally do 2.7-2.8 GHz on the stock cooler before it starts to need better cooling. a 2.8 GHz X2 compares roughly to the 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo, so a 2.5 GHz or faster Core 2 Duo overclock would beat what the X2 can do on stock cooling.
2. Socket AM2 X2s like decent DDR2-800, while one can run a Core 2 Duo E6300 at stock speeds on cheap DDR2-533. DDR2-533 is cheaper than DDR2-800, so you can narrow the price gap between the two units here if you want to.


Overall, I'd recommend that you get the 65W X2 4200+ if you don't intend on overclocking much or are on a limited budget. It's only a few bucks more than the 89W one and will run cooler. I'd recommend the E6300 if and only if you intend to overclock. Otherwise, it's more expensive and will burn more power than the 65W X2 4200+ will but give you no more performance. AMD currently has the advantage in bang-for-the-dollar in the mid-range and lower CPUs. It's not really until you start to look at CPUs over US$400 like the E6700 that Intel has a price-to-performance lead.

Under US$170, Intel has only the Pentium Ds, which cannot compete with the X2 3600+, 3800+, 4000+, 4200+, and 4400+ units. The lest expensive Core 2 Duo is the $170 E4300, which is priced similarly to the 2.3 GHz X2 4400+ Brisbane, which is faster than a E6300. The next Core 2 Duo is the $184 E6300, which is priced similarly to the X2 4600+ and the X2 4600+ is considerably faster. The $222 E6400 competes dollar-for-dollar with the $219 X2 5200+, where it sees the 5200+'s taillights. The $314 E6600 performs a little better than the $270 X2 5400+ but is also more than 10% more expensive. It isn't until the US$519 E6700 that Intel has anything that AMD can't match. The $529 X2 6000+ costs about the same but the E6700 is faster than the 6000+ by a bit. After the 6000+, AMD is out of single-socket chips, so the E6700 and X6800 rule the single-socket, dual-core space. [/u]
a c 99 à CPUs
February 26, 2007 3:37:23 AM

You generally lower your multiplier because your RAM can't take a straight-up overclock all the way to maximum CPU speed, thus you change the memory divider. This often raises the system bus speed to a level such that the CPU runs too fast at the top multiplier and needs to be dropped. I'll use an example:

My X2 4200 (socket 939) runs at 2200 MHz when the RAM is at a 1:1 strap and running at stock speeds (DDR-400.) I happen to have some value RAM in my box that will not run stable outside of the +/- 7.5% clock speed spec that's mandated by JEDEC. They will only go to 215 MHz- DDR-430- and then no further. So if I simply raise the RAM speed at the top 11x multiplier and 1:1 RAM strap, I get 2360 MHz out of my chip, which is very paltry, to say the least. So I drop the RAM strap to 1.20:1, which would allow DDR-333 to be used at stock speeds and yield a default system bus speed of 200 MHz. This lets me have a system bus speed of up to 258 MHz, which would yield 2640 MHz out of the CPU at the top multiplier. My CPU happens to be able to run happily at that speed, so I can push it further. I haven't actually found out the maximum of my CPU, but let's say it's 2.80 GHz, which is about what I've heard for a good E4 4200+ overclock.

So I drop the RAM strap yet again, this time to 1.50:1, which is for DDR-266. Now my CPU has a system bus speed of 323 MHz, which would yield 3553 MHz, which is probably only attainable on phase change or LN2. Dropping the multiplier to 10X would give me 3230 MHz, which is still more than the CPU can handle. 9x would give me 2907 MHz, so I back the RAM frequency a little, from 215 MHz to 211 MHz. Now the CPU hits its 2850 MHz figure.
February 26, 2007 3:58:17 AM

Very interesting. Thanks for the insight.

I thought that with the AMD chips the RAM speed was calculated from the CPU speed and an integer divider rather than as a multiple of the HT speed. The scenario that you described seems to be the way to overclock an Intel setup. Is it that the 939 and AM2 sockets configure RAM speeds differently?
February 26, 2007 4:32:31 AM

Quote:
but beware that no new processors are coming out for this platform.


Clarification. Production of all "4000" series 939 processors ended with 2006. Any 4000, 4200, 4400, 4600, 4800 or slower 939s are left over stock. When they're gone, they're gone. Amd is no longer taking orders for any 939 processors, but production on "5000" series will continue through Q2 2007, when all production of Athlon 939s will end. Not sure about Opterons.
The sun is setting on the Nforce3 Ultra :evil:  This will really be sad if someone comes out with an AGP DX10 video card. :cry: 
a c 99 à CPUs
February 26, 2007 11:33:54 AM

There is a system core clock called the LDT bus that the CPU core speed and HTT speed are derived from, also the RAM speed. All Athlon 64s have a stock LDT bus of 200 MHz, and the HTT speed is set with a multiplier just like the CPU speed is. Thus the HTT speed is configurable separately from the CPU core speed via that multiplier, but they all depend on the LDT clock.

RTS_fan: ALL 939 chips are being EOL'ed. And there were no X2 5xxx series for 939: there are the 3800+, 4200+, 4400+, 4600+, 4800+, and FX-60. The 5000+ and higher chips are all socket AM2 bits. And I did hear a rumor that an NVIDIA partner will make an AGP 8800.
February 26, 2007 6:03:37 PM

Hm I geuss SLI isn't the best choice? I don't think i'm gonna spend over a grand on two video cards(8800's). I was think i could get two 150$ cards which value togeather as 300$ and have performace of a 500$ card. But I geuss it doesn't work that way.;(
So I should go with the e4300 and a decent P965 board? This board's 170$
But's worth it right?, like I'll get a good overclock with it.

Asus P5B Conroe S775 P965 Atx Motherboard

http://www.cuttingedgecomputers.ca/shopexd.asp?id=1770

Total=$393.98
(Thats without powersupply and ram and the other stuff)

So with these two pieces i Should get a better performing computer(overclcoked) than the Amd system.

Thanks for all of the Help so far,
Odet
February 26, 2007 6:25:00 PM

That's not a bad board at all. I'm currently using an ASUS board (with the oder 945P chipset) and I've been pretty happy with it. I think $170 is a little expensive, though. You should be able to find a good P965 board for around CAN$140.

I would say that for a budget of around $300, you'd be much better off with either the ATI x1950xt or the nvidia 8800 GTS than any SLI with cheaper cards. One argument for SLI/crossfire is that you can get one card now, and increase your performance later with a second card with the same GPU. However, I really think that by the time you choose to do that, the next generation of GPUs will be out and you'd be better off selling your year-old card and buying a single new one. What you save on your motherboard now, put towards a better graphics card.

And as for gaming performance: once you've overclocked (the ASUS or Gigabyte boards have good overclocking features), your system will be faster than a 4200+ AMD system. As others have said, the AMD system might be better performance/$ at stock, but you have a lot more overclocking headroom with the average e4300.
February 26, 2007 7:04:18 PM

Do you have any experince with the Bios , (generally speaking of overclocking), to do with the Asus P5B Conroe S775 P965 Atx Motherboard ? If so can you tell me what i might expect to have to do to overclock the e4300. I know stock heatsink will get around 2.6 or whatever with no heating problems but would i have to adjust voltages? I'd really like to keep stock Voltages if possibile, thanks.

++EDIT++ Will an overclocked e4300(2.6Ghz) run faster then an overclocked 4200 at 2.7Ghz? Also the P965 board will be able to suport up to 2.6Ghz correct?
February 26, 2007 7:30:40 PM

Quote:
I must admit hough, although i bitch about am2 processor lacking the power of core 2, I still prefer the variety of chipsets for amd.


While there are tons of chipsets/boards now for C2D as well.
Although AMD boards are cheaper.
The e6300 is a better processor but over all you will end up paying more.
I'd say for budget systems the AMD's are still better solutions(for now).
The proces of both will continue to decline.
Also multipliers are locked on all but extreme versions of both.
Looking at those 2 setups you could find a cheaper AMD motherboard.
Yes that mobo should allow an OC to 2.5 Ghz.
With all components though some are better than other in batches.
So nothing is guarantee.
February 26, 2007 11:23:34 PM

The motherboard should have no trouble at all taking the e4300 to 2.5 GHz. Again, given the x9 multiplier on the CPU, even 2.7 GHz is only FSB 300 MHz, and some of these boards have gone well past 450 MHz. You're looking for a very mild overclock here.

I expect that you shouldn't have to increase the voltage until you're past 3 GHz. With the ASUS board, you should be able to use automatic overclocking settings if you're a novice. On my P5LD2 (may be a different BIOS, but likely very similar), I started my overclocking by using the automatic settings under the jumperfree configuration option. I was able to select 5, 10, 15, 20 and 30% overclock "profiles". The board intelligently picked the settings necessary to make this so.

Now, automatic isn't necessarily optimal. When you get into it more, you will be able to use the manual configuration options. You get to specify the FSB (say increase from 200 to 266), and then the RAM speed. It's usually best to keep a 1:1 FSB:D RAM ratio, so you should select either 266 or 533 for your RAM speed. This depends on how your motherboard displays memory speeds: my board shows the memory speed at 533 for a 1:1 ratio with the 266 FSB. The CPU speed will be set automatically as your FSB x9. As you shouldn't need to change voltages, you can leave all other settings on auto, and see how fast your computer goes. Download CPU-Z and see what the settings are for everything while you're running.

Overclocking, of course, goes deeper. You can start to play around with memory timings. Really the best thing to do is to look into the overclocking guides in these forums. They are quite thorough.
February 27, 2007 12:21:15 AM

Ok, thanks for your help, I'll be sure to come back here if i have any more questions.
!