Last message on previous page:
Thanks, but I didn't ask if buying e2200 guarantees that it will run stable at 2.2Ghz and I didn't question the ability if C2D CPUs to run @ 2200 Mhz.
My question way: does Intel use absolutely identical chips for e2140 and, say, e2200 or e2180? Does Intel only make those chips use a different multiplyer and puts a different label on the package, like "e2140", or "e2200"? If that's the case, then it would make absolutely no reason to buy a e2200, which would not make much sense to produce those, but still, I'm sure there are competent people around who can answer the question of whether e2180 and e2200 and are internally identical chips with different name and multiplyer.

ORLY?

Sounds to me like you did.

yes, all the E2xxx chips are EXACTLY the same, just a different multiplier.

Of course it makes sense. You need to do some reading to understand how the CPU industry works.

I'm not the incompetent one in this conversation.

Do you read what you quote? That's pretty scary when you ask 3 times "What time is it now?" with different words to make sure you are understood and still get "Yes, it's warm outside." as a reply.

Question: "Are e2140 and e2200 identical?"

Question: "So, are they identical?"

Question: "Do e2140 and e2200 run with different stability and different amount of generated heat at the same frequency?" Because if they do, then they are logically not the same...

Anyway, thanks for sharing your competence.

If two E2200s ran with different stability and different amounts of generated heat at the same frequency, are they also logically not the same?

You got it wrong again. I didn't say anything about 2 E2200 CPUs. "Do e2140 and e2200 run with different stability and different amount of generated heat at the same frequency?" refers to the models "e2140" and "e2200". So, if at a certain frequency e2140 line runs with lower stability and/or higher heat generation, e2140s and e2200s are obviously not "absolutely identical" and buying an e2140 CPU and overclocking it to that frequency is obviously not the same as buying an e2200 CPU and running it with the same frequency as the overclocked e2140.

It was a wise decision to delete your previous post btw. Nit-picking after being proven to be wrong doesn't look as bad as insulting people calling them "n00bs" and "fools" only because they don't know something you know.

Well, I'm glad you can admit I know something you don't. As for me being wrong, answer my question. I'm asking it to lead you to the correct conclusion. I was about to write you off as an annoying troll, hence the comments. However, after looking at your other posts, I don't think you're genuinely trying to be a troll, so I removed those comments. It seems you're just ignorant to the manufacturing of CPUs and their inherent variability. That's why I ask you this question. With the use of reason, we can find the correct answer to your original question.

No, they are not the same. The higher series typically are higher bins allowing them to run the same frequency with less voltage, thus generating less heat. This does not, however, always guarantee a higher overclock.

Sometimes, they will lower the multi on a higher binned CPU to meet demand to sale more at a lower margin rather then less at a higher margin.

I think they are the same, regardless of bin, except perhaps the extreme versions with unlocked multipliers.

The only real difference, for say E2140 and E2200 would be the multiplier, as long as the MB doesn't have to struggle with the FSB strap, from what I understand.

Even my system (E4400) struggles at 3.1ghz or 3.2ghz because of that FSB strap.

So it just makes sense to go with the CPU with the higher multi at the same (stable) FSB speed. If the 2140 can OC easy to 3ghz, then at the same speed the 2200 should be just as easy with faster results, because of its multi. The only thing really limiting the full potential of OC, is the FSB strap.

Now if you going by stability, temps, best OC that you can get on that series from what other individuals have done, your going to have factors that are not the same, which opens a can of worms for people to argue about. I mean, you going to have to have identical MB/RAM/BIOS settings/HS/PC Case/Airflow/Ambient temp/ECT that need to match. Other then that your going to have if not, some what different result. That is why I don't really see the difference of the E2xxx series, except the multi.

Dat's my 2 cents.

I also admit I know something you don't. So, no big deal.

What's really annoying is when people run out of arguments and start insulting other people instead.

Just for clarification, I never said you were wrong about e2140 and e2200 series being the same, I refered to

One of the reasons why I didn't answer your question is because not only am I perfectly aware of the fact that no two CPUs or any other two things in general can be absolutely the same (I'm not interested in the philosophical POV though), but it is also obvious what you are leading this to because of that. I'm also aware of the fact that inherent variability allows AMD and Intel to bin their CPUs, like AMD does with its EE line. What I don't know is whether Intel does the same with E2xxx, otherwise the answer to my original question would have been obvious.
So I allowed myself to skip this platonic dialogue and posted a reply in my previous post, since it does not help in any way to decide whether paying extra cash for the higher model is worth it.

Anyway, if you still want to try to lead me to the correct conclusion nothing prevents you from doing so.

That might be the case. I did more research and found out that e2160 can usually be overclocked to a higher speed than e2140 in reviews, by about 200Mhz. http://www.hwbot.org shows similar overclocking results. So that's a good clue supporting that statement.

Arguments? I wasn't aware we were arguing over anything. I don't even think this would classify as debate, more like question and answer: You asked a question, I gave you an answer, you claimed we did not answer your question, and reiterated question for clarity, I gave you more a succinct answer to your question as per request, you reject this answer and supplant your own theory, I ask you a question that invalidates your theory, you refuse to answer question and restate your theory. I don't see me being argumentative here. I'm certainly not trying to argue with you. I'm not sure on what point we'd even argue over, that Pentium E2140 and E2200 CPUs have the same stability and power requirements at 2200MHz? Of course they do. That would be like us arguing over whether Wednesday followed Tuesday. If you feel like this is an arguement, then that's purely on your end man.

If so obvious, why did you not answer it to being with, instead of acting like you misread the question and its point? That's the part I find perplexing. It seems you are simply looking for some way to prolong this conversation. May I ask why?

The answer the this question is not a simple as you think.
All CPUs are binned, to some extent. But then again, these Pentuim CPUs are theoretically Allendale rejects of the E4xxx line. Do you feel they've been binned yet again, to differentiate the best of the worst? Perhaps. However, Intel's Conroe/Allendale architecture has a max clock frequency that follows a bell curve pattern, with the mean I would guess to be around 3.0GHz, given that such a clock is readily achievable in the absence of any mobo or memory inadequacies. Also, the power dissipation of these CPUs likely follow a bell curve; the vast majority have similar power consumption characteristics, with only a few being at the extremes. So, if theory is to be believed, and Intel bins CPUs primarily on max clock or power consumption characteristics, then the vast majority of all cpus made would all be put in the exact same bin, leaving few cpus for the extremes of clock (the very low and the very high clock speeds). Now, it should not matter that there are low yields at the high clock speeds, because a high price is put on these processors to keep the supply in line with the demand. However, the low yield on those that can only run at low frequencies is what matters here, and that's where the binning theory no longer works. These low frequency CPUs are sold at low cost. The low cost means that a lot of people will buy them. Intel could never keep up with demand if they only sold CPUs that were of low bin only. In order to meet the demand of low end processors, Intel must start throwing in CPUs that have passed higher quality levels. These higher quality CPUs will come from the bin that has the most surplus, which is the mean frequency of the bell curve. So, the vast majority of all Pentium E2xxx CPUs come from the higher yield bins, and that's why I say that the E2140 and E2200 will have a good chance at having the same max overclock potential, provided your motherboard and memory don't get in the way first. That last part is very important. If you want to know if the E2200 will give to a better max overclock than the E2140, you first need to know the overclocking characteristics of your motherboard and the headroom you have in your ram. If, for example, your motherboard was known to be guaranteed stable up to 500 fsb, then it doesn't matter which CPU you get. Both will hit their absolute max frequency before you run out of fsb room, and that max frequency will most likely be almost the same between the two. Once you understand this, you can shop for a cpu that has a multiplier fitting for the speed at which you desire CPU to run at with the max fsb your mobo can reliably support, or at least to the fsb that you feel most comfortable with.

Except yourself. Unfortunately I cannot lead someone to enlightenment if they refuse to follow. Hopefully this spoon fed answer will suffice.

All the best,

Joe

It looks to me like your whole post is a result of you misinterpreting what I said again. Although it took me some time to realise it, since the first paragraph of your reply made absolutely no sense to me.

I can remind you.
I was refering to you trying to convince me of me asking something I haven't asked:

Followed by a rather childish reply with insults.

It's pretty obvious what I meant, since I don't remember arguing about anythign else.

I have never argued about CPUs, I have never rejected your answers, I didn't supplant any theories.

It looks to me that it was you who misinterpreted something, namely "arguments" here:

I didn't refer to your answer to my original question, which you obviously mistakenly assumed here:

I can only repeat it again:

It was an attempt to point out a source of possible misunderstanding, but you ignored it and started making attempts to convience me that your answer to my original question was correct after all, by asking me questions. And since you replaced your post with insults with a question that looks rather pointless, more like a harassment, it is no wonder people don't answer it.

I hope this showed you that you are most likely a victim of your own misinterpretation and i'm not the one who needs enlightment.

okay children. It is the intraweb, play nice.

So, the whole reason why you've been replying in this thread since that time was because you're mad at me for misunderstanding something you wrote? Here, let me get that comment you wrote:

does buying an e2200, which is more expensive, guarantee me that it will run more stable and maybe not as hot @ 2200 Mhz as an overclocked e2140 @ 2200Mhz?

So, in that question, you were not asking if the e2140 overclocked to 2200MHz would run as stable as an E2200 at stock? Wow, my bad, I totally misunderstood what you wrote. Silly me, here I was interpreting those letters into words, into a sentence to convey a thought. Now that I look at it, I was completely off base. I see now why you answered me with:

I didn't ask if buying e2200 guarantees that it will run stable at 2.2Ghz and I didn't question the ability if C2D CPUs to run @ 2200 Mhz. ....I'm sure there are competent people around who can answer the question.....

Man, that must have really made you angry, me misinterpreting your question like that. It completely justifies you implying that I'm incompetent in some way, followed by an extra page of whiney retorts on your part since that time. Sorry if I made you cry man. Truly, I am sorry.