Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

An $89 Pentium Dual Core that Runs at 3.2 GHz

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Pentium
  • Core
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 12, 2007 12:50:25 PM

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/09/12/pentium_dual_core/index.html

Do you want plenty of power for very little money? There is a CPU that can beat a Core 2 Duo E6750 for a fraction of its cost: consider a Pentium Dual Core CPU. It utilizes the Core 2 microarchitecture, but has an overclocking margin of almost 80%!

More about : pentium dual core runs ghz

September 12, 2007 1:42:40 PM

Nice find, I hadn't even considered a pentium or celeron since that last overclocking guide where they pushed the celeron to 4ghz or whatever it was. Lately all I hear is E6300, E6600, E6750, E7850, Q6600, and some of the lower C2Ds.
September 12, 2007 1:56:15 PM

What's some "relatively cheap" though decent memory for this type of overclock? Help me with the math here, but at 1:1, DDR2 would only be running at 400mhz at stock speed, and at 710mhz at the fsb1420. That's still not even the rated speed for DDR2800, so why did they mention a "10% memory overclock", and needing to up the memory voltage? Were they running a different memory ratio, and if so, why? I thought running it 1:1 was the way to go.

By the way, I'm thinking about doing something like this in the very near future. Thanks so much for this article as well as the $500 gaming rig article earlier this week.
Related resources
September 12, 2007 2:07:23 PM

Quote:
Yeah but how long will it last at 1.5v?? Im getting that speed from my E6300 at 1.325v.


Should run fine for however long you want to keep it.

Internal confidential Evga docs I have read consider up to 1.625v safe for C2D on their mobos, my quad runs fine at 1.49v and well within that limit.

September 12, 2007 2:12:41 PM

This is a great article for performance, but what about heat and power savings? I wish you guys would have talked more about the fact that this thing runs over 20 watts higher than the E6750. Also, how hot does this processer run?

I was thinking about trying this overclocking for an HTPC, but it just seems like the heat and power usage would make the E6750 a better solution.
September 12, 2007 2:28:26 PM

As far as I'm concerned that little bugger ROCKS. I love finding products that.
September 12, 2007 2:48:47 PM

They did that witch stock cooling... if they have better cooling couldn't they go quite a bit higher?
September 12, 2007 3:00:17 PM

Ok... I don't want to be overly zealous toward AMD but enough is enough. I'm bordering recommending Toms be removed as a credible source for hardware info. Recent off track recommendations include the $500 PC, now this, the hardware recommendations here are so bios it actually makes me angry.

Let's get one thing clear, Intel C2D is great, but more expensive than the X2. The X2 gives up 400-600Mhz to the full blown C2D. On a stripped down C2D, 300-400Mhz.

This CPU really needs to be placed into the same class as the 4100+ on 65nm Tech. I believe the two CPUs will trade blows when fully over clocked. The Intel will take more wins. Problem is, the AMD "system" will cost you about $50 bucks less. Add to that the Quad core upgrade path and the choice becomes VERY difficult.

Why won't Tom's look at AMD at all! What about an $80 full blown AMD 690 board which has Raid, paired with a $75 cpu that will crank 3.0Gig? Now you save $50 bucks or more of the Intel and in 6 months pick up a quad core for... $100 bucks? Come on Tom's your hardware "advise" has been... well off the mark.
September 12, 2007 3:12:50 PM

Looks to me like the thing runs fine at stock speeds as well. FPS in games are all well over 60 and that was at stock.
September 12, 2007 3:15:17 PM

4100+? Ahh ... what?!? No clue. Honestly, if you're buying a board that cheap are you really gonna use the RAID feature. My guess is that you won't have the money to be able to blow on two HDDs if you're pinching pennies like that. 3.0 Ghz, right, with on a good day with an Scythe Infinity submerged in LN2. Pshhh.
September 12, 2007 3:49:28 PM

Yeah, but it's only a 32bit CPU... something that should be put in bright red flashing colours on the main page of the article.
September 12, 2007 4:02:45 PM

well sum questions supposed to be answered by Patrick Schmid, Achim Roos the ppl who did the overclocking
i really want to know what was the temp that they operated there cpu at especially that it was on stock cooling
more over the cpu life is reduced by the increase of both factors heat and voltage, so even if you could ceep it cold the life would be reduced, i think up to ~1.4v wont be bad and nearly no noticable decrease. for this cpu at this price if it served for a couple of years at 3.2G+ that would be very nice for its price.
September 12, 2007 4:11:39 PM

PeterHighlander said:
Ok... I don't want to be overly zealous toward AMD but enough is enough. I'm bordering recommending Toms be removed as a credible source for hardware info. Recent off track recommendations include the $500 PC, now this, the hardware recommendations here are so bios it actually makes me angry.


Just about the only thing that didn't make sense in their $500 build was the $100 power supply. It was a pretty good article and says what it is supposed to. That you can build a computer that will play games pretty well without having to spend $2000 on them, which is something most sites seem to forget. While extreme systems are nice they aren't practical for most people visiting the site. We've seen all sorts of people asking for recommendations in the $500-600 range on the forums.

PeterHighlander said:
Let's get one thing clear, Intel C2D is great, but more expensive than the X2. The X2 gives up 400-600Mhz to the full blown C2D. On a stripped down C2D, 300-400Mhz.

This CPU really needs to be placed into the same class as the 4100+ on 65nm Tech. I believe the two CPUs will trade blows when fully over clocked. The Intel will take more wins. Problem is, the AMD "system" will cost you about $50 bucks less. Add to that the Quad core upgrade path and the choice becomes VERY difficult.

Why won't Tom's look at AMD at all! What about an $80 full blown AMD 690 board which has Raid, paired with a $75 cpu that will crank 3.0Gig? Now you save $50 bucks or more of the Intel and in 6 months pick up a quad core for... $100 bucks? Come on Tom's your hardware "advise" has been... well off the mark.

This was about a high OCing chip that ran on a fairly basic motherboard and was cheap. They probably don't have an AMD processor listed because they couldn't find one that would also OC 80% for the same price on the stock cooler. This article wasn't about how each and every processor compares, it was about how even a low end processor can OC to high levels. How many other processors are you going to find for $90 that is going to get an 80% OC with a stock cooler. 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.

In terms of future upgrading of the system, this build is also using a motherboard that supports the next generation of Intel CPUs as well along with the current generation of quad cores. The upgrade potential of this system and an AMD system is going to be fairly similar. In fact, unlike the AMD system, we know with 100% certainty the minimum we can expect in the upgrade where as the upgrade potential of the AMD system is still unknown. Its likely to be pretty good for the AMD system, but the Intel system is likely to improve as well, but the certainty of what you will get with AMD is still unclear.


The thing is, even if they put an AMD system into the article as well, if it didn't perform as well as the Intel system they showed then you would still complain that it was unfair and simply done to show the bias against AMD. Their last article, which you were just complaining about, with the low cost system which is where AMD is supposed to be strongest and you still didn't like it. There was no bias there for one system or the other, they showed that at similar costs you could build a system from either company and they would be about equal. It was just about as unbiased as you can get.
a b à CPUs
September 12, 2007 4:28:23 PM

What's happened here lately? Tom's used to be my main source of hardware reviews, but the quality just isn't here anymore.

Case in point is on Monday: Several other review sites had posted Barcelona reviews, Toms had a slideshow of the best IFA Booth Babe. Yesterday Tom's posted that the Barcelona has officially unveiled the Barcelona - a day late and a dollar short from where I'm sitting.

Others: Foxicon only "review" that read more like a paid promotion of their 8800 linup with no new information, a laptop gaming comparison with one machine running XP the other running Vista (saying that's what came pre-installed isn't justification IMHO). Then there is the beer cooling comparison - yes I know it was for a laugh, but spend the effort on improving CPU/other charts before spending time on stuff like that.

On the topic of the charts, half the time I'm looking for a product that isn't there and have no idea of how to compare it to what it is on the charts. Specifically mobile CPU's: I was recently looking at an AMD TM5x CPU and couldn't find any info on Tom's saying how it compares to the 2 AMD chips that are on the charts, a blurb saying that a core 2 duo CPU not shown is best compared by clock speed to the ones that are, and the AMD's TM or other TL processors are best compared by .... (?)
What about mobile graphics? I understand that it is virtually impossible to make a chart like with the desktop graphic cards, but a list of the cards by power (or a tier-type table) would be VERY helpful, even as a rough starting point. Laptops are the fastest growing computer market after all.

This review:

Page 2: "Knowing about the multipliers, it becomes obvious that such a processor can only be overclocked by increasing the other multiplier, which is the system clock speed. The only exceptions are the Extreme Edition processors, which come totally unlocked to allow users flexible overclocking. "

Umm... where to start... what are you trying to say here? Do the extreme editions of CPU's have other ways to increase speed (besides multi/FSB)? What I think you meant was: only the Extreme editions have an unlocked multiplier, the rest of Intel's Core 2 product line is limited and can only be overclocked by increasing the FSB. The "knowing this" at the start was about the CPU being limited to a 9x multiplier - saying it can be operated lower than 9x doesn't mean it can't be run higher. Note: Most will say this CPU has a locked multiplier, but since it can be reduced I prefer saying limited to 9x.

Page 3: "we discovered a pretty interesting detail. If you do not change the CPU voltage when overclocking and set this item to "auto", the P35-DS3P will automatically increase the CPU voltage, which helped to run the processor at up 3 GHz without manual fine-tuning."

<sarcasm> You DISCOVERED it? what's next... you will stumble across the auto memory settings? </sarcasm> Maybe you need to discover the EXCELLENT overclocking guide in the overclocking forum here. Most guides, including that one, I've seen say to first overclock your processor with voltage set to auto because it's easier, BUT be warned that the auto setting always over-supplies power to the CPU. So what is usually recommended is to use auto until your running a speed your happy with, then switch to manual voltage and lower it to the lowest one that keeps the system stable - this way it produces less heat which may lengthen the lifespan of the processor (along with consuming less power, and may keep the fans operating at a lower RPM/quieter)

Summary of the conclusion: This is a very nice processor for $89, but in winrar or gaming it cannot compete clock for clock it with the 4MB of cache on the e6750.

In July you showed the e4300 with a price of $120, this is virtually the same processor but with 2MB cache, it should now be found for less than two months ago. Why not suggest it as a better option for a gamer-friendly budget overclock?



September 12, 2007 4:51:46 PM

PeterHighlander said:
Ok... I don't want to be overly zealous toward AMD but enough is enough. I'm bordering recommending Toms be removed as a credible source for hardware info. Recent off track recommendations include the $500 PC, now this, the hardware recommendations here are so bios it actually makes me angry.

Let's get one thing clear, Intel C2D is great, but more expensive than the X2. The X2 gives up 400-600Mhz to the full blown C2D. On a stripped down C2D, 300-400Mhz.

This CPU really needs to be placed into the same class as the 4100+ on 65nm Tech. I believe the two CPUs will trade blows when fully over clocked. The Intel will take more wins. Problem is, the AMD "system" will cost you about $50 bucks less. Add to that the Quad core upgrade path and the choice becomes VERY difficult.

Why won't Tom's look at AMD at all! What about an $80 full blown AMD 690 board which has Raid, paired with a $75 cpu that will crank 3.0Gig? Now you save $50 bucks or more of the Intel and in 6 months pick up a quad core for... $100 bucks? Come on Tom's your hardware "advise" has been... well off the mark.


Sorry, but even the X2-6000+ can't touch this chip when both are fully OC'd.
Check the reviews at X-Bit LABs for lots of good articles.

They did not compare the chips directly, but the X6000+ was over 10% behind the E6850 in most benches.
Even if an OC to 3.3Ghz (10%) yielded a 10% boost (Unlikely) it still would have lost.
Also OC's to 3.3Ghz are tough since AMD has already boosted the TDP on that chip from 89w to 125w so they could get the 5600+ chip running at 6000+ speeds.

The E2160 clearly beat the E6850 when the E2160 was OC'd to 3.2Ghz.
Perhaps the hand-picked X2-6400s would come close but still would lose on clock.
Maybe, just maybe you could OC to match performance.

You can still get a cheaper AMD System, but even the fastest X2 can't really touch any of the C2Ds.
If they were better, AMD would sell them for more like they used to.
However, they are selling at bargain bin prices because that is they need to do when the chips are compared.

It's just not the folks you consider "FanBoys" making these claims.
It's AMD with their pricing.
September 12, 2007 5:10:08 PM

muk said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/09/12/pentium_dual_core/index.html

Do you want plenty of power for very little money? There is a CPU that can beat a Core 2 Duo E6750 for a fraction of its cost: consider a Pentium Dual Core CPU. It utilizes the Core 2 microarchitecture, but has an overclocking margin of almost 80%!


So all you suckers who put out for the higher clocked chip now know how C2D commoditized the CPU and kicked the bottom of the ASPs.

Excuse me I didn't mean suckers, I meant enthusiasts.
a b à CPUs
September 12, 2007 5:16:19 PM

erloas said:
This was about a high OCing chip that ran on a fairly basic motherboard and was cheap. They probably don't have an AMD processor listed because they couldn't find one that would also OC 80% for the same price on the stock cooler. This article wasn't about how each and every processor compares, it was about how even a low end processor can OC to high levels. How many other processors are you going to find for $90 that is going to get an 80% OC with a stock cooler. 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.


This review was about a high OCing CPU, yes, but - I'm sorry, this chip doesn't exist in a vacuum. Personally I prefer to buy something that has the highest overall rating for what I'm willing to spend. At $90 this CPU has a great maximum overclocked performance, but sacrifices on power efficiency, produces a lot of heat, and is will be NOISY with the stock fan.

An AMD x2 5600+ (or 6000+) is $150 (170) on newegg, they offer similar performance at stock speeds but will be quieter, eat less power (which will offset the cost difference over time), requires a cheaper motherboard, and will do MUCH better in gaming. So at max OC this CPU may win in a performance/cost comparison, but would never be recommended overall because of the issues I just mentioned.

If a fan was added the costs for a complete system would be similar to the 5600+, this solves the noise issue. While this overclocked CPU will show better performance numbers, it still loses overall thanks to the power efficiency/gaming performance on the x2’s.

September 12, 2007 5:55:45 PM

menetlaus said:
This review was about a high OCing CPU, yes, but - I'm sorry, this chip doesn't exist in a vacuum. Personally I prefer to buy something that has the highest overall rating for what I'm willing to spend. At $90 this CPU has a great maximum overclocked performance, but sacrifices on power efficiency, produces a lot of heat, and is will be NOISY with the stock fan.

An AMD x2 5600+ (or 6000+) is $150 (170) on newegg, they offer similar performance at stock speeds but will be quieter, eat less power (which will offset the cost difference over time), requires a cheaper motherboard, and will do MUCH better in gaming. So at max OC this CPU may win in a performance/cost comparison, but would never be recommended overall because of the issues I just mentioned.

If a fan was added the costs for a complete system would be similar to the 5600+, this solves the noise issue. While this overclocked CPU will show better performance numbers, it still loses overall thanks to the power efficiency/gaming performance on the x2%u2019s.


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. The E6550 will break 3GHz at lower then default motherboard voltages and with that decrease in voltage ends up running at about the same heat or less then it did at default levels, or at least it did on my brothers system.

Also the difference in price $90 vs $150 its going to take quite a while to make up $60 in energy costs, though we don't know how quickly since they didn't include power usage of this system but considering they are using it with an 8800 GPU the power difference of the CPU isn't going to make a huge difference on the total power usage of the system.

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.

AMD has its strong point, but at this time higher % OCing isn't really one of them. I know at least two people that will probably have me build them a system soon and I'm very likely to use AMD in both of those situations but there are plenty of other situations where I would use Intel too.
September 12, 2007 6:03:11 PM

menetlaus said:
An AMD x2 5600+ (or 6000+) is $150 (170) on newegg, they offer similar performance at stock speeds but will be quieter, eat less power (which will offset the cost difference over time), requires a cheaper motherboard, and will do MUCH better in gaming. So at max OC this CPU may win in a performance/cost comparison, but would never be recommended overall because of the issues I just mentioned.

If a fan was added the costs for a complete system would be similar to the 5600+, this solves the noise issue. While this overclocked CPU will show better performance numbers, it still loses overall thanks to the power efficiency/gaming performance on the x2’s.



What are you talking about? The 6000+ consuming less power? Than what? A Pentium D 840? Your facts are non-existant.
September 12, 2007 6:15:52 PM

menetlaus said:
This review was about a high OCing CPU, yes, but - I'm sorry, this chip doesn't exist in a vacuum. Personally I prefer to buy something that has the highest overall rating for what I'm willing to spend. At $90 this CPU has a great maximum overclocked performance, but sacrifices on power efficiency, produces a lot of heat, and is will be NOISY with the stock fan.

An AMD x2 5600+ (or 6000+) is $150 (170) on newegg, they offer similar performance at stock speeds but will be quieter, eat less power (which will offset the cost difference over time), requires a cheaper motherboard, and will do MUCH better in gaming. So at max OC this CPU may win in a performance/cost comparison, but would never be recommended overall because of the issues I just mentioned.

If a fan was added the costs for a complete system would be similar to the 5600+, this solves the noise issue. While this overclocked CPU will show better performance numbers, it still loses overall thanks to the power efficiency/gaming performance on the x2’s.


Actually the X6000+ will not use less power.
AMD had to really crank up the power to make it run that fast.
There is a reason AMD had to up the TDP from 89w to 125w!!!!

The TDP of the E2160 and E6850 are 65w.
So the fact that the E2160 is going over the E6850 power numbers by about 10% would seem to indicate it would use far less power than the AMD's.

And no, those processor will not be able to compete at the higher cost.
Take note that the X2-6000+ loses handily to the E6700 in these charts.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium-e2...

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/02/20/does-amds-athlon...

However, the E2160 competed quite closely to the faster E6750.
a b à CPUs
September 12, 2007 6:17:32 PM

zenmaster said:
You can still get a cheaper AMD System, but even the fastest X2 can't really touch any of the C2Ds.

Depends on what you want out of a system, If you only care about CPU performance numbers and CPU cost - then your right.

BUT if you include overall system cost (AM2 mobo's are cheaper), power efficiency (OCing takes lots of juice), and cooling noise (stock fan) - then the 5600+ or 6000+ are very competative with the lower C2D's. At stock the 5600+ would dominate the e2150. I know AMD currently has no answer to the mid to high end C2D's when overclocked (but those don't touch the price/performance of the "lower" ones)
September 12, 2007 6:23:10 PM

Yahoo....((sarcasm)) you shave off a few seconds on some benchies you never run or use ever unless your benching you system for braging rights. Is there someone here who is keeping score???? Even from a gamers point of view I argue that this chip is pretty good at stock. Those benchmarks make me laugh, some of them are almost dead even with the chip at stock. A few games you get a good increase but as long as you get over 60 fps you should be doing quite well. Most are a lot over 60 fps. The boring truth is.........the best chip for ((you)) whether it be AMD or Intel is the best chip ((you)) decide it to be for youself and what ((you use)) it for. Take this article for what it is.....nothing more nothing less. Read it, learn from it, move on......I actually enjoyed the article.
September 12, 2007 6:25:27 PM

Quick reference point for a "budget gaming systems".... Supreme Commander. If it can't run a 6 or 8 player game pretty well... then it's not a gaming system.

To the person who questioned a 65nm AMD X2 chip and overclock potential... Your ignorance makes you the poster boy as to why I'm upset with sites like Tom's and their lack of attention to a viable alternative. 3.0 is very likely and in a properly vented case, very doable on stock cooling. Infact, it was a review at Toms that selected a "budget" $130 Intel cpu then slapped on a $50 cooler! Again, to that I say... 4100+ and $100 bucks in my pocket or for an upgraded video card.

To the person who questioned raid on an $80MB... Yes I would run it. I run NForce raid now, why wouldn't I run it on a less expensive MB? It's less expensive because of sites like Tom's and peoples perception.... I guess that's good for me.

As for the future. Here's how I perceive reality. Early tests show the new AMD core (Barc) will be close to current C2D. If AMD doesn't kill intel... I get a cheaper Quad core at less money. Early tests also show intel's next core will not bring more speed... but perhaps a better OC... maybe not even that, perhaps just better power numbers. Any way you cut it... the AMD quad core upgrade path is very attractive.

If you had 600 bucks to build a gaming computer capable of running Supreme Commander, how would you spend it? No doubt Intel CPUs are faster and also as a system $100-$150 more expensive. That money is usually better spent on the next step video card and/or 2nd hard drive.

And so... How about this. Bench two gaming "systems".. like in the $500 review. Except, instead of the same video card for both, since the AMD system is less expensive, upgrade the graphics! See the point? Bench a "stock" 4100+ with say $80 mb and $60 PC800 memory against a C2D with a mb capable of the 5.1+ sound and raid, maybe requiring PC1066... and all of a sudden the AMD system has room for an 8800GTS where the Intel gets an X1950Pro.... Sound fair? Heck if PC1066 is actually required, the AMD system can be raid + 8800GTS.

That's the point! $600 budget system, spend it all and get the most.

The horse is now dead.
September 12, 2007 6:41:06 PM

Quote:
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. :kaola: 
a b à CPUs
September 12, 2007 6:49:37 PM

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.

erloas said:
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)

erloas said:
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.
September 12, 2007 7:14:40 PM

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 :-p

So, I still OC, but I know first hand, you are running a risk of early retirement.
September 12, 2007 7:21:59 PM

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: 
September 12, 2007 7:56:02 PM

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.
September 12, 2007 7:58:53 PM

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

Nice article.
September 12, 2007 8:10:55 PM

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.
September 12, 2007 8:41:12 PM

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.

September 12, 2007 8:44:39 PM

KyleSTL said:
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. :) 
September 12, 2007 8:54:51 PM

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.
September 12, 2007 8:57:43 PM

"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.
September 12, 2007 9:15:47 PM

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

a b à CPUs
September 12, 2007 9:20:09 PM

KyleSTL said:
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?
September 12, 2007 9:36:26 PM

Both are based on the same architecture. The e4x00 series has twice the cache (as you mentioned), and has a slightly higher Extended Halt power of 12W (as opposed to the 8W for the E21x0 series). 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.
September 12, 2007 9:46:35 PM

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.
September 12, 2007 10:19:05 PM

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.
September 12, 2007 10:38:03 PM

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.
September 12, 2007 11:16:00 PM

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.
September 12, 2007 11:45:45 PM

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 :>
September 12, 2007 11:49:13 PM

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

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 :D 
September 13, 2007 12:19:37 AM

:pt1cable:  :pt1cable:  :pt1cable:  Now that I have read this thread it is all clear. :pt1cable:  :pt1cable:  :pt1cable: 
September 13, 2007 3:32:20 AM

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
September 13, 2007 5:28:54 AM

Did they mention about temp ?
a b à CPUs
September 13, 2007 5:50:44 AM

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.
September 13, 2007 6:53:43 AM

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.
!