Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

bang for buck CPU atm?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 29, 2007 2:15:49 AM

i think the thread topic is pretty self explanatory
get those low cost CPUs *OCd* beating the high ones *at stock performance*

parameters: intel dual core and above. good to great overclocking abitliy

thanks

More about : bang buck cpu atm

October 29, 2007 2:24:12 AM

I would say to get a Q6600 G0 stepping depending on your budget, also they are EXCELLENT overclockers.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
October 29, 2007 2:56:16 AM

Why not the e2160? It'll do 3 gig's pretty easy and also on stock HSF, a bit toasty, but can do it. e2180 would make it easier to go farther maybe, so the e2160 or e2180 I think would be the best bang for the buck. I like the AMD x2 5000+ BE, because it OC's without any extra heat or FSB bumps and the mobo's are cheaper (in general) compared to the Intel ones. It all depends on what your goals are. If you want to run Phenom (which we don't know enough about) or if your going with Penryn later. So Intel I'd go e2160/2180 or if you went AMD, I'd consider the x2 5000+ BE.
October 29, 2007 11:57:53 AM

hahah yer its a good quote he is a funny man.

how do i know if its a GO stepping quad? i think i read somewhere a while ago the first models weren't then they release another batch that did have the GO? im unsure ?

I did put together a system for a friend and chose the 2160... but im thinking that the cache may be lacking.

I'm putting a system together for myself that will get me buy until penryn native quads are released. I MUST run CRYSIS :p  so im thinking mayb a quad is the way to go but still bit pricey for a temp CPU. then once nehalem come out which i have been informed is a different socked pass this comp down to someone else.

im a little all over the place :)  love technology the way it takes no one with it
October 29, 2007 4:30:34 PM

What about the e4300? Looking at Tom's charts, it looks to be the best bang for the buck of the newer core 2 duos. Any opinions on this chip?
October 29, 2007 4:58:16 PM

I'm looking at a similar situation myself. I'm going to build a new Intel system very soon. I wanted to wait for January and the Penryn non-extreme release, but my current rig is killing me.

I decided to go the cheapo CPU route myself looking at the 2180 or a 6550 on a Maximus Formula board, 2G RAM, and a 2900 Pro flashed to XT mode. This will leave me plenty of room for upgrades til Nehalem/AMD's newer offerings. I figured I would OC the hell out of one of the new 1333 FSB chips and run dual core til January. Then drop in a Penryn, an additional 2900 pro for CrossFire, 2 more gig of RAM, and Vista 64.

By January, I should have a good/great DX10 gaming system that should do it's job for a couple years.

I would have loved to use the newly reviewed 8800 GTs in SLI, but the X38 chipset doesn't support SLI apparently. If anyone has successfully ran any of the G80s on an X38 in SLI, please let me know!! :) 
October 29, 2007 5:50:02 PM

lunyone said:
I like the AMD x2 5000+ BE, because it OC's without any extra heat


NO NO NO. It does indeed put off more heat. Raising the multiplier increases cycles/second, raising hz increases power consumption (not nearly as much as voltage bump, but there is a difference). Please everyone, help me assist everyone in understanding this.
October 29, 2007 9:54:10 PM

amd 5000+ is the best for under $150

while the e6420/6750 are the best for $200

best for over $250 q6600
October 30, 2007 1:28:30 AM

ahhh so as my best bet until i am willing to pay for a quad penryn.. i should prob go for the E2180 oc to 3.2ghz+?
October 30, 2007 1:33:52 AM

Id go with a different cooler aswell. it can later be used on your more expensive cpu too. Cahce size doesn't make a large difference in gaming.
October 30, 2007 3:39:39 AM

what cooler u recommend?
October 30, 2007 3:43:26 AM

also just thinking... what are the differences between the 2160 and 2180 stock apart from their clock? is the 2160 able to reach the same OC as a 2180?
October 30, 2007 5:49:43 AM

For overclocking:
Under $100: E2160/E2180 (3GHz is not uncommon, in fact I have seen a few good chips O/C close to 3.5GHz!)

$100 - $150: E4500/E4600 (Will O/C to 3GHz easily, my E4400 runs @ 3.35GHz on the stock HSF!)

$150 - $200: E6750 (Should hit 3.5GHz easily, best choice for dual core if you can afford it)

Of course you can also get the Q6600 for $266, and these are overclocking monsters too, you just need a beefy HSF as these can get quite hot when pushed to 3.5GHz with added voltage!
October 30, 2007 5:53:37 AM

jamesro said:
also just thinking... what are the differences between the 2160 and 2180 stock apart from their clock? is the 2160 able to reach the same OC as a 2180?


Yeah, the clock and multi is the main difference, 1.8GHz vs 2GHz / 9x vs 10x multi. I don't think there is much binning difference between the two to be honest, both should overclock to around the 3GHz mark without much difficulty.
a b à CPUs
October 30, 2007 5:57:54 AM

KyleSTL said:
NO NO NO. It does indeed put off more heat. Raising the multiplier increases cycles/second, raising hz increases power consumption (not nearly as much as voltage bump, but there is a difference). Please everyone, help me assist everyone in understanding this.

Here's Tom's quote on my reasoning for the statement above:
When we overclock our 5000+ Black Edition by 500 MHz (29 %) to 3.10 GHz, we see that the power consumption increases only minimally.
Due to the fact that the CPU runs at its stock voltage, it only draws 8 W more than it would at stock speed. However, when we set the CPU to run at 3.30 GHz, which requires an increase in core voltage, the thermal power dissipation suddenly jumped to 108 W.
It is found here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/22/budget_overclock...

Yes if you have to raise the CPU voltage up, you'll expend more heat, but as stated above, if you keep the stock voltage you won't really expend that much more heat (8w).
October 30, 2007 6:00:21 AM

I'm thinking about either a Q6600 Quad Core or an E6850. It would primarily be used for gaming and watching 1080p movies. What do you guys think would be best?
a b à CPUs
October 30, 2007 6:04:13 AM

Friction said:
I'm thinking about either a Q6600 Quad Core or an E6850. It would primarily be used for gaming and watching 1080p movies. What do you guys think would be best?

That's a coin flip. It all depends on what your doing. Obviously your watching movies, but either can do that easily. If you doing alot of encoding than the Quad will beat the e6850, but the e6850 does better than the quad (no OC'ing) at most games. There are a few games right now that will take advantage of the extra cores and this will proabably be the case in the future, so you can decide which one best suits you. If you can wait until the begining of the year, you can get a Penryn chip and that would consume less watts and be equal to or better than what is out now.
October 30, 2007 6:05:12 AM

so between a 2160 and a 2180 ur basically paying for the factory to make it a 10x multiplier where they both pretty much have an upper limit OC of the low 3GHz mark?
October 30, 2007 6:14:28 AM

jamesro said:
so between a 2160 and a 2180 ur basically paying for the factory to make it a 10x multiplier where they both pretty much have an upper limit OC of the low 3GHz mark?


Yeah pretty much, to be honest I've noticed *slightly* higher overclocks on the E2180 compared to the E2140/E2160, but it could be luck of the draw if anything. The sample size is too small to draw any real conclusions, but I would say that any E21x0 chip has a good chance of hitting 3GHz at stock or slightly raised Vcore, with the better chips capable of 3.4 - 3.5GHz with a 0.1V - 0.2V voltage bump and good cooling.
October 30, 2007 6:16:13 AM

how lucky do you have to be to get a "better" chip? im assuming ur referring to the actual quality of the CPU :S
October 30, 2007 6:25:13 AM

jamesro said:
how lucky do you have to be to get a "better" chip? im assuming ur referring to the actual quality of the CPU :S


Yeah, generally the dies from the centre of the wafer overclock slightly better than the ones from the edge, or so the theory goes. So while the process as a whole clocks well, you still have your lemons and gems.

I'd say on average 3.2GHz would be a good point to shoot for, but don't be too disappointed if your chip maxes out at 'only' 3GHz - at the end of the day it's luck of the draw. :sol: 
October 30, 2007 6:30:32 AM

thanks heaps for your input...thoroughly appreciated :D 
October 30, 2007 11:16:58 AM

lunyone said:
Here's Tom's quote on my reasoning for the statement above:
When we overclock our 5000+ Black Edition by 500 MHz (29 %) to 3.10 GHz, we see that the power consumption increases only minimally.
Due to the fact that the CPU runs at its stock voltage, it only draws 8 W more than it would at stock speed. However, when we set the CPU to run at 3.30 GHz, which requires an increase in core voltage, the thermal power dissipation suddenly jumped to 108 W.
It is found here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/22/budget_overclock...

Yes if you have to raise the CPU voltage up, you'll expend more heat, but as stated above, if you keep the stock voltage you won't really expend that much more heat (8w).



And you seem to forget C2D chips can often yeild larger OCs with stock voltage (or even voltage reduction). The point you are trying to make is moot.
a b à CPUs
October 30, 2007 11:23:46 AM

The point I was making was that the AMD 5000+ can OC without much more wattage or temperatures. Yes the C2D's can do a better job at it, but some people don't want Intel. I was just pointing out that there are other options available. Not that it is a better option, but an option non the less.
October 30, 2007 11:55:54 AM

Q6600 G0 FTW!

Just dont forget to get a decent cooler if you intend to overclock beyond 3.2 Ghz : )
October 31, 2007 12:11:52 AM

quad 6600 GO looks tempting...
im also factoring that coz its going to be my first attempt overclocking
i prob am better off doing it with the cheaper option :p 
October 31, 2007 12:49:35 AM

It's not that we don't want intel just that we want a 6850 for $150 LOL.
October 31, 2007 1:30:21 AM

exactly
a c 102 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
October 31, 2007 2:29:50 AM

jamesro said:
i think the thread topic is pretty self explanatory
get those low cost CPUs *OCd* beating the high ones *at stock performance*

parameters: intel dual core and above. good to great overclocking abitliy

thanks


It depends on how much you want to spend. If you want to spend as little money as possible get an Athlon 64 X2 3600+ Brisbane. Those can get up to a little over 3 GHz without too much trouble. You'd not be able to buy a Pentium Dual Core and a motherboard that would overclock much at all for as little money as an X2 3600+ and a MB that will drive it to 3 GHz+.

Next in line would be the Core 2 Duo E4300. The little 1 MB L2 cache in the Pentium Dual Cores really sacks performance, so the cheapest 2 MB L2 chip (E4300) does something like 10% better clock-for-clock than the 1 MB L2 Pentium Dual Cores. The E4300 also has the same 800 MHz FSB and a higher multiplier than most Pentium Dual Cores, which makes it easier to overclock.

I'd consider the E6550 next in line. It's a G0 stepping 4 MB L2 dual-core and costs less than the original B-stepping 1066 MHz FSB Core 2 Duos do. The 1333 MHz FSB does give it a lower multiplier, but the cache does give it a good boost over the E4000 series. Your board needs to be a decent one to jack the FSB up to the speeds required for this guy to hits its potential, but most newer enthusiast boards should do well.

Finally, the G0-stepping Q6600 is your chip if you have the budget. You'll need a good cooler as the quads can throw off some serious heat when pushed hard, but it's a quad core and will give apps that will use it a big boost over a dual.
October 31, 2007 3:47:05 AM

MU_Engineer said:
Next in line would be the Core 2 Duo E4300. The little 1 MB L2 cache in the Pentium Dual Cores really sacks performance, so the cheapest 2 MB L2 chip (E4300) does something like 10% better clock-for-clock than the 1 MB L2 Pentium Dual Cores. The E4300 also has the same 800 MHz FSB and a higher multiplier than most Pentium Dual Cores, which makes it easier to overclock.


It should read:
"the cheapest 2 MB L2 chip (E4300) does something like 10% better clock-for-clock than the 1 MB L2 Pentium Dual Cores. The E4300 also has the same 800 MHz FSB and a higher multiplier than [one - the E2140] Pentium Dual Core, which makes it easier to overclock"
October 31, 2007 12:34:23 PM

the only thing is that this is i guess a temp CPU until im ready to get a Quad Penryn
October 31, 2007 1:00:26 PM

That's honestly the most financially sound solution at this moment. Buy a budget C2D and save some cash for January, then put in the Penryn. You can build a great Penryn ready system for a relatively good price right now. My build was altered a bit from above due to some recent revalations of the ATi cards.

Now, due to the poor Vista and DX10 performance (and power consumption) of the 2900s, I'm just going to put a single 8800GT on the X38 and pray that ATi comes out with something worthy of CrossFire on PCIe 2.0. I would wait for the 780i or 790i, but I really want to try out an Intel chipset for once. I know their track record, and they are always, if nothing else, solid as a rock.
!