Intel Core 2 Duo OC?

actually the e6600 is >$300 US. The E6400 is ~$220 US and the e6300 at $183
would be better than the 805D

-john

"Phil Weldon" <notdiscosed.TakeThisOut@example.com> wrote in message
news:_q97h.7569$l25.6723@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> 'Billy Bob' wrote:
> | I'm looking into building a new core 2 duo system and read a great
> review
> on
> | the 6400 OC'd to 3.1 with stock cooling. How does the 6300 and the
> others
> | do? Is the 6400 the new sweet spot, bang for the bucker for right now?
> _____
>
> Good question. At > $300 US for the E6400 Core 2 Duo, the Intel 805 D at
> about 1/3 the price could also be a contender, depending on what 'bang for
> the buck' means. But since you are building a new system (from scratch, I
> assume), your criteria include more than just 'bang for the buck'.
>
> Phil Weldon
>
> "Billy Bob" <me.TakeThisOut@getlost.com> wrote in message
> news:tMydncMahshpYsHYnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> | I'm looking into building a new core 2 duo system and read a great
> review
> on
> | the 6400 OC'd to 3.1 with stock cooling. How does the 6300 and the
> others
> | do? Is the 6400 the new sweet spot, bang for the bucker for right now?
> |
> |
> | thx
> |
> | bob
> |
> |
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Intel Core 2 Duo OC? 

'Major Ninth' wrote:
| actually the e6600 is >$300 US. The E6400 is ~$220 US and the e6300 at
$183
| would be better than the 805D
_____

You are correct, must have transposed. Somehow using clock speed to
identify CPUs seems simpler B^)

The question then becomes 'At what CPU clock speed Core 2 Duo become a
better performer than an Intel 805D @ 3.6 GHz?'
Given that these days the CPU is no longer the most expensive component of a
system, the Core 2 Duo E6600 and E6400 CPUs have the nod for overall system
performance 'bang for the buck.'

But for a brief shining moment the 805D was the new Celeron 533a B^)

Phil Weldon

"Major Ninth" <MajorNinthREMOVETHIS.RemoveThis@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:GPa7h.832$gl5.477@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
| actually the e6600 is >$300 US. The E6400 is ~$220 US and the e6300 at
$183
| would be better than the 805D
|
| -john
|
| "Phil Weldon" <notdiscosed.RemoveThis@example.com> wrote in message
| news:_q97h.7569$l25.6723@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
| > 'Billy Bob' wrote:
| > | I'm looking into building a new core 2 duo system and read a great
| > review
| > on
| > | the 6400 OC'd to 3.1 with stock cooling. How does the 6300 and the
| > others
| > | do? Is the 6400 the new sweet spot, bang for the bucker for right
now?
| > _____
| >
| > Good question. At > $300 US for the E6400 Core 2 Duo, the Intel 805 D
at
| > about 1/3 the price could also be a contender, depending on what 'bang
for
| > the buck' means. But since you are building a new system (from scratch,
I
| > assume), your criteria include more than just 'bang for the buck'.
| >
| > Phil Weldon
| >
| > "Billy Bob" <me.RemoveThis@getlost.com> wrote in message
| > news:tMydncMahshpYsHYnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
| > | I'm looking into building a new core 2 duo system and read a great
| > review
| > on
| > | the 6400 OC'd to 3.1 with stock cooling. How does the 6300 and the
| > others
| > | do? Is the 6400 the new sweet spot, bang for the bucker for right
now?
| > |
| > |
| > | thx
| > |
| > | bob
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|
 >> Stay informed about: Intel Core 2 Duo OC? 

So back to the original question: How well do the others (besides the
6400) )C?

thx

bob




"Phil Weldon" <notdiscosed.TakeThisOut@example.com> wrote in message
news:Cmd7h.7597$l25.4095@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> 'Major Ninth' wrote:
> | actually the e6600 is >$300 US. The E6400 is ~$220 US and the e6300 at
> $183
> | would be better than the 805D
> _____
>
> You are correct, must have transposed. Somehow using clock speed to
> identify CPUs seems simpler B^)
>
> The question then becomes 'At what CPU clock speed Core 2 Duo become a
> better performer than an Intel 805D @ 3.6 GHz?'
> Given that these days the CPU is no longer the most expensive component of
> a
> system, the Core 2 Duo E6600 and E6400 CPUs have the nod for overall
> system
> performance 'bang for the buck.'
>
> But for a brief shining moment the 805D was the new Celeron 533a B^)
>
> Phil Weldon
>
> "Major Ninth" <MajorNinthREMOVETHIS.TakeThisOut@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:GPa7h.832$gl5.477@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> | actually the e6600 is >$300 US. The E6400 is ~$220 US and the e6300 at
> $183
> | would be better than the 805D
> |
> | -john
> |
> | "Phil Weldon" <notdiscosed.TakeThisOut@example.com> wrote in message
> | news:_q97h.7569$l25.6723@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> | > 'Billy Bob' wrote:
> | > | I'm looking into building a new core 2 duo system and read a great
> | > review
> | > on
> | > | the 6400 OC'd to 3.1 with stock cooling. How does the 6300 and the
> | > others
> | > | do? Is the 6400 the new sweet spot, bang for the bucker for right
> now?
> | > _____
> | >
> | > Good question. At > $300 US for the E6400 Core 2 Duo, the Intel 805 D
> at
> | > about 1/3 the price could also be a contender, depending on what 'bang
> for
> | > the buck' means. But since you are building a new system (from
> scratch,
> I
> | > assume), your criteria include more than just 'bang for the buck'.
> | >
> | > Phil Weldon
> | >
> | > "Billy Bob" <me.TakeThisOut@getlost.com> wrote in message
> | > news:tMydncMahshpYsHYnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> | > | I'm looking into building a new core 2 duo system and read a great
> | > review
> | > on
> | > | the 6400 OC'd to 3.1 with stock cooling. How does the 6300 and the
> | > others
> | > | do? Is the 6400 the new sweet spot, bang for the bucker for right
> now?
> | > |
> | > |
> | > | thx
> | > |
> | > | bob
> | > |
> | > |
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Intel Core 2 Duo OC? 

'Bob Johnson' wrote:
| So back to the original question: How well do the others (besides the
| 6400) )C?
_____

Be the first on your block to post results!

Phil Weldon

"Bob Johnson" <Bob DeleteThis @johnson.com> wrote in message
news:EdSdnTsti-azR8LYnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast.com...
| So back to the original question: How well do the others (besides the
| 6400) )C?
|
| thx
|
| bob
|
|
|
|
 >> Stay informed about: Intel Core 2 Duo OC? 

I'll probably go with a 6300 or 6400 because of budget reasons and the fact
that the higher end chips are closer to peaked out than their liitle
brothers


bob



"Phil Weldon" <notdiscosed.DeleteThis@example.com> wrote in message
news:4l18h.755$tM1.465@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> 'Bob Johnson' wrote:
> | So back to the original question: How well do the others (besides the
> | 6400) )C?
> _____
>
> Be the first on your block to post results!
>
> Phil Weldon
>
> "Bob Johnson" <Bob.DeleteThis@johnson.com> wrote in message
> news:EdSdnTsti-azR8LYnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast.com...
> | So back to the original question: How well do the others (besides the
> | 6400) )C?
> |
> | thx
> |
> | bob
> |
> |
> |
> |
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Intel Core 2 Duo OC? 

'Bob Johnson' wrote:\
| I'll probably go with a 6300 or 6400 because of budget reasons and the
fact
| that the higher end chips are closer to peaked out than their liitle
| brothers
|
Good thinking. Please post your result; I'm sure some of us will follow in
your footprints!

Phil Weldon

"Bob Johnson" <Bob RemoveThis @johnson.com> wrote in message
news:qpednSHMXYOYJf3YnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
| I'll probably go with a 6300 or 6400 because of budget reasons and the
fact
| that the higher end chips are closer to peaked out than their liitle
| brothers
|
|
| bob
|
|
|
| "Phil Weldon" <notdiscosed RemoveThis @example.com> wrote in message
| news:4l18h.755$tM1.465@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
| > 'Bob Johnson' wrote:
| > | So back to the original question: How well do the others (besides the
| > | 6400) )C?
| > _____
| >
| > Be the first on your block to post results!
| >
| > Phil Weldon
| >
| > "Bob Johnson" <Bob RemoveThis @johnson.com> wrote in message
| > news:EdSdnTsti-azR8LYnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast.com...
| > | So back to the original question: How well do the others (besides the
| > | 6400) )C?
| > |
| > | thx
| > |
| > | bob
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|
 >> Stay informed about: Intel Core 2 Duo OC? 

"Phil Weldon" <notdiscosed.TakeThisOut@example.com> wrote in message
news:qL38h.919$sf5.481@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> 'Bob Johnson' wrote:\
> | I'll probably go with a 6300 or 6400 because of budget reasons and the
> fact
> | that the higher end chips are closer to peaked out than their liitle
> | brothers
> |
> Good thinking. Please post your result; I'm sure some of us will follow
> in
> your footprints!
>
> Phil Weldon
>
Ditto on that. I am looking at those for my next build too. Let us know how
well you do and the particulars. I have this hot old EM64T-I630 3.0ghz
(Prescot core) running at 3.6 and it is a hot sucker. It is hot at stock and
hot at 3.6........ Temps are the same at both and it is as stable as a
rock so I may as well get the extra 20% more speed.......... From all I
have read the 6300 and 6400 are the sweet spots for OC'ing and run a lot
cooler than what I have. For budget reasons I will probably not be able to
do anything until after the first of next year so I would be interested in
how well you do.

Ed
 >> Stay informed about: Intel Core 2 Duo OC? 

Here is Tom's review, for starters:


http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/10/10/cheap_thrills/


b0b







"Ed Medlin" <ed DeleteThis @edmedlin.com> wrote in message
news:PLi8h.12230$IR4.74@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Phil Weldon" <notdiscosed DeleteThis @example.com> wrote in message
> news:qL38h.919$sf5.481@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...Her>> | I'll
> probably go with a 6300 or 6400 because of budget reasons and the
>> fact
>> | that the higher end chips are closer to peaked out than their liitle
>> | brothers
>> |
>> Good thinking. Please post your result; I'm sure some of us will follow
>> in
>> your footprints!
>>
>> Phil Weldon
>>
> Ditto on that. I am looking at those for my next build too. Let us know
> how well you do and the particulars. I have this hot old EM64T-I630 3.0ghz
> (Prescot core) running at 3.6 and it is a hot sucker. It is hot at stock
> and hot at 3.6........ Temps are the same at both and it is as stable
> as a rock so I may as well get the extra 20% more speed.......... From
> all I have read the 6300 and 6400 are the sweet spots for OC'ing and run a
> lot cooler than what I have. For budget reasons I will probably not be
> able to do anything until after the first of next year so I would be
> interested in how well you do.
>
> Ed
>
 >> Stay informed about: Intel Core 2 Duo OC? 

"Bob Johnson" <Bob RemoveThis @johnson.com> wrote in message
news:eY2dnfflC_bW2__YnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Here is Tom's review, for starters:
>
>
> http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/10/10/cheap_thrills/
>
>
> b0b
>
Thanks for the link.

Ed
 >> Stay informed about: Intel Core 2 Duo OC? 

'Ed Medlin' wrote, in response to 'Bob':
| > Here is Tom's review, for starters:
| >
| >
| > http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/10/10/cheap_thrills/
| >
| >
| > b0b
| >
| Thanks for the link.
_____

Ed, it's been a while since I read much at the 'Tom's Hardware' site. I
always felt you should take the reviews there with a grain of salt. In your
opinion, has it improved? I just looked at the review 'Bob Johnson' cited
<http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/10/10/cheap_thrills/>, I it seemed at
first glance that there were some technical errors in the article. And when
it is easy for me to pick out an error or two on aspects I AM familiar with,
then I begin to question other points. For example, these two sentences
seem to be at odds.

"All current Core 2 Duo desktop processors use Intel's "1066 MHz" Front Side
Bus (quad data rate at a 266 MHz clock rate), and many otherwise good
motherboards are incapable of going much beyond a 300-MHz system clock rate.

Intel's 975X chipsets in particular have shown limits somewhere around 380
MHz in optimal form, and early BIOS problems have hampered several retail
implementations of the "overclock friendly" P965 Northbridge."

Now that's a relatively minor issue, but I really wonder about the 1.52 CPU
core voltage used for overclocking the E6400, that seems awfully high and
close to the max static Vcc, and when combined with transients ...

And then there are the gaming tests that show absolutely no difference in
performance because the display adapters were the bottlenecks.

On the other hand, the articles are usually well written, pretty well
documented, and hey, is there any better website out there for the purpose?

This just a casual observation; I'd like to know what others think on the
subject.



Phil Weldon

"Ed Medlin" <ed.DeleteThis@edmedlin.com> wrote in message
news:w0D8h.21$wc5.15@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
|
| "Bob Johnson" <Bob.DeleteThis@johnson.com> wrote in message
| news:eY2dnfflC_bW2__YnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
| > Here is Tom's review, for starters:
| >
| >
| > http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/10/10/cheap_thrills/
| >
| >
| > b0b
| >
| Thanks for the link.
|
| Ed
|
|
 >> Stay informed about: Intel Core 2 Duo OC? 

"Phil Weldon" <notdiscosed.RemoveThis@example.com> wrote in message
news:o4E8h.1726$ql2.191@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> 'Ed Medlin' wrote, in response to 'Bob':
> | > Here is Tom's review, for starters:
> | >
> | >
> | > http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/10/10/cheap_thrills/
> | >
> | >
> | > b0b
> | >
> | Thanks for the link.
> _____
>
> Ed, it's been a while since I read much at the 'Tom's Hardware' site. I
> always felt you should take the reviews there with a grain of salt. In
> your
> opinion, has it improved? I just looked at the review 'Bob Johnson' cited
> <http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/10/10/cheap_thrills/>, I it seemed at
> first glance that there were some technical errors in the article. And
> when
> it is easy for me to pick out an error or two on aspects I AM familiar
> with,
> then I begin to question other points. For example, these two sentences
> seem to be at odds.
>
> "All current Core 2 Duo desktop processors use Intel's "1066 MHz" Front
> Side
> Bus (quad data rate at a 266 MHz clock rate), and many otherwise good
> motherboards are incapable of going much beyond a 300-MHz system clock
> rate.
>
> Intel's 975X chipsets in particular have shown limits somewhere around 380
> MHz in optimal form, and early BIOS problems have hampered several retail
> implementations of the "overclock friendly" P965 Northbridge."
>
> Now that's a relatively minor issue, but I really wonder about the 1.52
> CPU
> core voltage used for overclocking the E6400, that seems awfully high and
> close to the max static Vcc, and when combined with transients ...
>
> And then there are the gaming tests that show absolutely no difference in
> performance because the display adapters were the bottlenecks.
>
> On the other hand, the articles are usually well written, pretty well
> documented, and hey, is there any better website out there for the
> purpose?
>
> This just a casual observation; I'd like to know what others think on the
> subject.
>
I read an article from there once in awhile. I try and read a lot of
different points of view and just kind of mix 'em all up to get to my own
final opinion........ The 1.52v core voltage does make me cringe a bit. I
found the article to be ok, just because it shows that the E6400 is a good
OC'er, but I have some reservations about some of their statements vs some
other site's results, like the 380mhz limit they state. I usually go to
Anand and Tom's first because they both have well documented and written
reviews. This forum has been very good over the years for actual r/l
information. It has slowed down unfortunately...... It seems to be having a
bit of a rebirth with the C 2 Ds.

Ed
 >> Stay informed about: Intel Core 2 Duo OC?