/ Sign-up
Your question

2.4c more overclock potential?

  • CPUs
  • Overclocking
Last response: in CPUs
June 30, 2003 1:09:00 PM

I keep seeing references to the P4 2.4C cpu as being highly overclockable. I have seen it refered to as the 'overclocking king'. Does this chip have some advantage over the 2.6c or 2.8c besides being less expensive?

Thanks for any info, about to make a choice between these chips....

More about : overclock potential

June 30, 2003 2:40:57 PM

It is the same chip as the 2.6 and 2.8c just with a lower multiplyer...if you want my opinion i would say that the 2.6c is a better bet because it has a higher multiplyer so you won't need to run your ram at ungodly speeds just to get a decent o/c.
However price to performance...nothing from intel beats the 2.4c.
June 30, 2003 3:04:23 PM

Thank you for the reply. So getting the 2.4c to the same levels stresses the ram more because you are having to crank up the FSB so much? Won't a 2.6c overclocked stress the ram just as much if you overclock it proportionally (increase the FSB the same amount as you did the 2.4c)? The 2.6c will be higher overall but if the FSB has been overclocked by the same amount won't it cause the same stress to the ram? Thanks again for the info, I am still learning.
Related resources
June 30, 2003 4:00:45 PM

It's about the max final speed a particular core can do.

if we take 2 near identical cores, a 2.6C and a 2.8C:
the 2.6 is reached by 200FSBx13=2600
The 2.8 is 200FSBx14=2800

If we also say the core (either one) cannot go faster than maybe 3.4Ghz, and we cannot adjust the multiplier on either chip, So the best either chip could do is:
2.6 = 261FSBx13=3400Mhz(ish)
2.8 = 242FSBx14=3400Mhz(ish)

so you see the chip that's slower overall is more likely to hit a limit on the FSB before the final clockspeed, and therefore will have higher bandwidth=faster overall.

you see what I mean? I'm not great at explaining these things....

$hit Happens. I just wish it would happen to someone else for a change.
June 30, 2003 5:06:18 PM

I think I understand. So you are kind of saying the 2.6c could potentially be faster because they are both maxing out around the same mhz, but the 2.6c is running a higher fsb which is better for your performance. But at the same time you are stressing the system slightly more with the 2.6c because of the higher fsb.

If I understand correctly, my only question would be, shouldn't the 2.8c be able to push to a higher mhz than the 2.6c? Then you would have the high fsb along with the stress on the system with the 2.8c as well but it would run at a higher mhz. Or are you saying they are so similar that even though it starts off at a higher mhz overall, it still maxes out at the same level as the 2.6c? I know this varies for each chip but these are just ideal examples we are dealing with...

Thanks again for taking the time.
June 30, 2003 5:34:16 PM

After rereading your post chipdeath I understand more clearly. You are saying that they are 'identical' chips bascially and intel just makes them different by locking the mulitiplier so they can sell at different levels. I was always under the impression that there was an actual difference between the chip cores and intel came to their decision based on performance sorting. Thanks for the information and I think i am catching on. I hope so anyway...
June 30, 2003 6:07:11 PM

Intel does do a little performence sorting. Leme try to explain this (chipdeath you did a fine job but leme put it into diffrent words)
When you are overclocking what is the point?
To get the highest performance at the lowest price by running your components faster than they are rated

That being said a 3.0ghz processor would prolly be the best for overclocking (15x multiplyer) but the price to performance ratio saves you very little. Same thing with the 2.8.

So bear in mind these are intel (duh) cpus with LOCKED multiplyers...the only way to overclock is by fsb.
So lets say you wana o/c what ever cpu you get to 3.0 ghz
2.4 stock = 200x 12
@ 3ghz 250x 12
now that is kinda hard to hit (250mhz that is) cause first of all the chipset might not take it and second and more importantly you need very good ram to take those speeds.
now to the 2.6
2.6ghz stock = 200x 13
@ 3.0ghz = 231x 13
IMO that is a much easier speed for both the board and memory to hit. Most pc3500 should do it just fine.
So what am i saying...with the 2.6's higher multiplyer it is A LOT easier to hit higher clocks. If you have really good memory... i agree most of them will peak out the same...because all though intel does do some performance sorting you have to relise that if intel marked every stable 2.8ghz chip as a 2.8... they would not have enough 2.6's and 2.4's as well as the prices of 2.8's would go down. So because of this it is my opinion that most 2.6's at least are just downgraded processors.
June 30, 2003 6:15:57 PM

Awesome, thanks to both of you. This is making a lot of sense to me now. I know this isn't the forum for this, but my last question then would be, if I am buying a 2.6c, would the new Corsair 3700 twinx be under used and basically overkill if the chip core maxes before the memory does? If so, then I will get 2 regular non twinx sticks of the corsair 3500 xms. Thanks again, you guys rock.
June 30, 2003 6:33:13 PM

OK...Nice that you understand now...
About the memory...since you seem to be new to building pc's just as in processors...mhz is not everything. You have to worry about memory timmings...just search google you should find some sites that can explain it better than i ever could. Anyhow here is an example
corsair pc3500 = 2-3-3-7-T1
and the pc3700 = 3-4-4-8-T1
Now bear in mind lower numbers are better...the pc3700 runs very $hitty timmings in comparison to the 3500. I would be willing to bet that a decent pc3500 module could hit 3700 speeds all you have to do is relax the timmings. So what does all this mean...unless you have a lot of money stick with pc3500...even if you do have a lot of money, stay away from corsairs pc3700, geil and ocz seem to be running a bit better timmings.
June 30, 2003 6:47:19 PM

Gotcha. The reason I was looking at the 3700's was because I had been looking to pick up an Asus P4P800 (I failed to mention that earlier) and some people are having trouble with memory (specifically low mhz memory) on those. Corsair claims the 3700's are made to work with caterwoods/springdale and specifically the Asus boards. They also claim that higher mhz seem to work better on this board than the lower latency so I was weighing that option and in the middle of that had to consider this new option of chip core. I think I will go with your recommendation though and stick with the non twinx 3500's xms since Corsair previously recommended those as well or go with another brand all together.
June 30, 2003 6:57:24 PM

i beleive most problems are cured by relaxing the memory timmings...or disabling dual channel
June 30, 2003 7:01:25 PM

About pick out a good module go on the net and just read the reviews. For the most part if both modules are at the same speed the module with the best timmings will be the faastest, but the big diffrences are how they overclock and thats what reveiws are for.