Ben's Bargains Serving Fresh Deals 24/7

Oh yeah? my 2.7GHz Celeron (Northwood, 128Kb L2) can do 3.0 with the stock factory heatsink. Take that, quad-cores!

who cares about clock speed now anyways. Overclocking burns more power even with power saving features turned on. You're basically spending $50-200 extra a year to power an overclocked rig.

Oc'ing just doesn't make sense to me any more. Not just because of the extra power required (and heat buildup), but from the irritation of setting up all the tweaks, cooling, etc., required to get it stable just for a few % of performance gain.

These things are fast enough anyway, and I consider the many hours of tweaking to be more than paid for by the extra $75 for the faster CPU anyway. Then the stock cooler works like a champ, too.

Removed by forum Administrator

i heard these have a bug with the temp sensor on them. does this affect all the new 45nm cpus or just the e8400?

#2 Shut up and get back writing Basic programs on your economical Commodore 64 & CRT, you pathetic douch.

#6 shut up . #2 has a valid point.

#2, overclocking does not have to translate into a huge power draw. Our Pentium Dual Core E2160 (1.8GHz) chip was super fast and easy to overclock to 3.0GHz at stock voltage. Most of the time it is running at 2.0GHz because of SpeedStep; it only jumps to 3.0GHz when it is needed. Add the power savings of Halt State and 90% of the time it is at or below the wattage of a stock E2160.

I got mine up to 4.0 GHz with no problems at all.

Proof--> http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=362339

#2 has a point, but his numbers ($50 - $200) are high. Even if overclocking pushed this CPU from a maximum of 65 W to 100 W, it would only use one extra kWh every 28.5 hours. And even if the PC was running 24/7 for the entire year, that's only about 300 kWh. At 12 cents each, it's not even 40 bucks a year.

why are we not taking into account that oc'ing decreases the lifespan of the cpu?

Voltage, not clockspeed, is what truly reduces CPU lifespan. But if you are running it at 10% or less over-voltage, reducing the lifespan of a CPU from 5 years to 4 years is still rather mute. After 4 years a CPU already has very little value.

Of course if you majorly overvolt a CPU and it dies a premature death then that is ones own personal issue.

There's little need to increase the voltage much if you have chosen your parts wisely. I have an Abit IP35-e w/ e8400 @ 3.9Ghz... i'm completely stable and barely draw anymore watts (I own a Killawatt) than I did at stock. I upped my voltage 2 or 3 stops and am perfectly fine and not wasting energy. All my powersaving features have been re-enabled too!

Whoever said that you'd only be able to get a couple % point higher of an overclock is a ignorant fool and hasn't the slightest idea what they are talking about... not to mention those complaining about drawing more power and killing your CPU faster (btw if you still have the same CPU as your primary 4-5 years down the road... you truly are cheap lol).

BTW it took me less than 30 minutes to overclock my CPU to where it is now... excluding running Prime for a few hours. Stop being a lazy tool bag and actually apply yourself to something instead of sitting there on a deal site.

#3, the stock cooler sucks.

I overclocked my intel to be faster than the $1000 CPU that was out at the same time that i bought mine.
I paid $180 for my CPU last year and it does encoding of video so much faster now than what it did stock. If the CPU burns out, big deal... by that time.. there will be a faster CPU to buy and overclock past what i have it now. Paying a fraction of what the top of the line costs is better than paying top dollar like an rodeo cowboy and have end up dropping in price every month after you purchase it.

this specific CPU is very easy to overclock, and it does it very well. Simply Upping the FSB to 400Mhz will get you to 3.6Ghz and u dont need to change the stock heatsink. Install an aftermarket cooler to go further, I have it running at 4 Ghz very stable, some ppl got it u to 4.4 and 4.5 Ghz, thats a 50% increase in speed.

Get a quad because you get more speed. 3Ghz on 4 cores = 12 Ghz vs 4Ghz on 2 cores = 8Ghz. Thats a 30% increase in speed. And if this makes sense to you perhaps you should throw away the CS degree you got in the mail and let the grown-ups talk instead.

#14, bullshit.

agree with #18. It blows.

#17 you're dumb. it doesnt work like that.
and besides not all programs utilize all four cores yet.