Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

C2D E7300 overclocked to 4GHz+

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 12, 2008 8:11:24 PM

http://forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?t=248207

For those wondering, the E7300 is a 45nm C2D based on the upcoming Wolfdale-3M core, a cut down version of Wolfdale core with 3MB of L2 cache instead of 6MB. The E7x00 series will effectively replace the E4x00 series in the sub $150 market. It is scheduled to be released some time in Q2 (April to June).

If the retail samples overclock as well as the ES, it would be a good alternative to the more expensive E8x00 C2Ds. The smaller L2 cache should only have a slight impact on overall performance, which I'm sure many people would overlook for a $50 - $100 saving. :) 
March 12, 2008 8:15:23 PM

Isn't 1.37V a fair whack for a 45nm Core 2? :??: 
Looks good though and you're right, a great budget enthusiast chip! :) 
March 12, 2008 8:42:16 PM

LukeBird said:
Isn't 1.37V a fair whack for a 45nm Core 2? :??: 
Looks good though and you're right, a great budget enthusiast chip! :) 


1.37V is not *that* bad, many E8400 chips need a similar voltage to reach 4GHz also. I think as long as you stay below 1.4V with a good HSF, you should be fine.

Something I forgot to mention in my earlier post is that it should be a pretty good chip at stock speeds too (I know this is THG but some people prefer not to overclock), stock performance would be similar to an E6750 but with a ~$50 lower pricetag.

Related resources
March 12, 2008 9:18:27 PM

epsilon84 said:
1.37V is not *that* bad, many E8400 chips need a similar voltage to reach 4GHz also. I think as long as you stay below 1.4V with a good HSF, you should be fine.

Something I forgot to mention in my earlier post is that it should be a pretty good chip at stock speeds too (I know this is THG but some people prefer not to overclock), stock performance would be similar to an E6750 but with a ~$50 lower pricetag.

He he, look at my stuff, I don't OC!
Although I have to admit, I've contacted someone about getting some big numbers out of my GTXs! :lol: 
Retail E6xxx's are going to be knocking around for a while if the E7xxx & E8xxx's are available in big numbers anytime soon...
Perhaps the E8xxx 'shortage' is there for a reason... :D 
a c 127 à CPUs
March 12, 2008 9:21:44 PM

Not bad. Not bad at all. If those CPU temps are right it is pretty cool for those speeds too.
March 12, 2008 9:31:40 PM

LukeBird said:
He he, look at my stuff, I don't OC!
Although I have to admit, I've contacted someone about getting some big numbers out of my GTXs! :lol: 
Retail E6xxx's are going to be knocking around for a while if the E7xxx & E8xxx's are available in big numbers anytime soon...
Perhaps the E8xxx 'shortage' is there for a reason... :D 


LOL without trying to 'convert' you, let me just say that you are doing your pair of 8800GTXs a massive disservice by leaving your CPU at stock. :kaola: 
March 12, 2008 9:32:03 PM

Damn if intel can sell that at a $120 dollars that would be a budget king I think. This should be an intresting april indeed phenoms and Wolfdales.
March 12, 2008 9:38:27 PM

mrgoodbar said:
Damn if intel can sell that at a $120 dollars that would be a budget king I think. This should be an intresting april indeed phenoms and Wolfdales.


My biggest concern is that vendors will try to price gouge the crap out of it if it becomes popular like the E8400... :sarcastic: 

Hopefully by the time it is released Intel will have enough 45nm inventory to ensure price gouging is kept to a minimum.
March 12, 2008 11:33:24 PM

Actually, according to Intel's site, as long as you stay below 1.3625v for the VID, you're fine.

This is a lot lower than the 1.5v VID for the 65nm C2D, also specified in Intel's site.
a b à CPUs
March 13, 2008 1:25:15 AM

This one runs with a 1066 fsb and a 10x multi. Going to be one heck of a bang for buck cpu.
March 13, 2008 11:50:53 AM

epsilon84 said:
LOL without trying to 'convert' you, let me just say that you are doing your pair of 8800GTXs a massive disservice by leaving your CPU at stock. :kaola: 

Ha ha yeah I have thought of that!
I very nearly pulled the trigger on a Phenom, but I'll wait until B3 (at least 2.6GHz is what I'm looking for) and see then :) 
March 13, 2008 1:19:44 PM

The question is can this CPU out perform an E6750 @ 4GHz as well? Maybe, maybe not we shall see.
March 14, 2008 12:44:59 AM

The_Blood_Raven said:
The question is can this CPU out perform an E6750 @ 4GHz as well? Maybe, maybe not we shall see.


I don't see why it shouldn't. The Q9300 (essentially a QC version of the E7x00) is slightly faster than the Q6600 per clock, despite the smaller cache, due to the architectural improvements in 45nm.

Any differences in performance would be minimal though, the most noticeable difference would be in the pricetag and power consumption.
August 12, 2008 6:50:11 AM

A e7200 is about even at 2.5ghz compared to my cpu @ stock speeds of 2.66ghz. I have it at 3.6ghz for a few months tho, now
August 12, 2008 6:53:12 PM

I have a question. I'd really like to upgrade from my E6300 @3.4 to one of these E7200 @4.0gzhz. What's the chance of me reaching that speed with a eVGA 680i SLI Rev. A1. My guess is that it's not very high, but maybe someone has experience overclocking Wolfdale on my board.
August 12, 2008 9:05:07 PM

Stick with your cpu for awhile longer. It's still perfectly fine. I upgrade from an AMD X23800+ 2.0ghz x 2 to an e6750 @ 3.6ghz. Unless you're really itching to change, give it a try. I'm not totally sure about Nvidia chipsets you can always try it and find out. I like Intel because of the great overclocking capabilities.
August 12, 2008 9:56:16 PM

Is $20 more for an e7300 really worth it over the current e7200? Its an extra .5 of a multiplier? I own an e7200 currently ive got it at 3.2ghz without breaking a sweat and only a minimal increase on the voltage...
October 25, 2008 6:29:38 PM

could someone give me a hand with my e7300 ? i'm running into some issues, and i think it is because of the RAM. i'll throw the specs out first and then the problem i am encountering.

e7300 2.66ghz proc
ocz platinum ddr2-1066 2x2GB
evga 750 ftw board

the motherboard is detecting the ram as ddr2-800 and the slower bus speed. cpu-z also reports the same (pc2-6400). so in overclocking, if i set the FSB:RAM ratio to 1:1 BIOS will not boot. maybe because it thinks its OCing from 800 to like 1200 ? tis the question at hand.. not too sure of the answer. here are the settings i have it at now:

cpu
rated FSB 1600mhz
bus speed 400mhz
multiplier 8
core speed 3200mhz
vcore 1.18v

ram
bus speed 533mhz
tl/trcd/trp/tras/trc/cr 5-5-5-18-32-2T
2.05v

FSB:RAM ratio 3:2

cpu reports the FSB:RAM ratio is 3:4 does that seem odd to anyone else? if i manually set the ratio to 1:1, i cant bring the proc above 1100mhz (rated), BIOS will fail to boot.

i've just run a stress test and at full load the cores are around 57c and 35c idle (yes, experimenting with the stock HSF). i'm not trying to go crazy with this thing, but the ratios are bothering me. also, because of the configuration, BIOS reports the total speed as 1066 and 1600mhz, memory & cpu respectively. thanks in advance for any help provided.

-al


edit: i've tried upping the voltage to get the ratio at 1:1 with no success. cpu was around 1.4 and ram was at 2.2
October 26, 2008 5:25:11 PM

nevermind the above. i've found the pitfall after applying some more common sense. the rated vs real was screwing me up. so essentially now it is running 400mhz along with the proc which totals 800mhz. ill have to play with it to get it back up to 1066 cause it seems the processor doesnt want to go much further with this combo.
!