Ancient X2 setup > Core2 setup questions

Dutch Guy · 15 Jan 2008 at 11:49

With the current low prices and the fact I found a possible buyer for my system I have been thinking about finally going to a Core2 system (I know

) but I have a few questions.

This is what I came up with:
CPU: Core2 Duo E6550
Mobo: Intel P35 chipset (Abit IP35) or Nforce650 (Asus P5N-E SLI)
Memory: OCZ 2GB DDR2-800 Kit 4-4-4-15

- I will be overclocking using watercooling and my aim is 3Ghz – 3.4Ghz, will the components be able to do that or will I need a different mobo and/or faster memory like DDR2-1066?
- Will I get a lot of trouble getting the mobo to run at 450Mhz or should I get a CPU with a lower FSB like 800Mhz or 1066Mhz to get a higher multiplier? (I think 450Mhz is needed with a 7x multiplier)
- I will be using 32bit XP and Vista, is there a good reason to get 4GB of memory or will that just be wasted?

semi-pro waster · 15 Jan 2008 at 12:25

I'd probably opt for the E2180 or E2200 for the 10/11x multipliers respectively as that would make it rather easier.

Of the choices I'd do with the IP35, the P35 is a newer chipset than the Nforce one but well tested by this point and there are a lot of people who could offer advice if you run into problems since they are so common.

4gb Ram would still give you about 3.5gb in XP (depending on the amount of Ram you have on your GPU) and if you are using Vista I think it probably worth it as it is rather heavy on memory usage I believe.

melbourne720 · 15 Jan 2008 at 12:49

Definitely P35 chipset, it will support the upcoming 45nm CPUs. On the subject of those, you might consider waitign for the 8x00 series. They are a little more expensive than the e6550 (the e8400 is £144.51 to pre-order) but have more cache, and look like they'll do 4GHz on air.

DDR2 800 ram is good for a 400FSB before you overclock it, so with a 9x multiplier that would give you 3.6GHz. If you were heading for 4, I would get 1066MHz RAM (PC-8500).

Most P35 Mobos will do 450MHz.

Hope that helps

Dutch Guy · 15 Jan 2008 at 13:12

I know that the upcoming 8x00 CPU's will be faster but as I don't use the computer that often it has to be sort of a budget solution so I guess that those are too expensive.

I thought about a E2200 but they have a lot less cache (2x512MB vs 2x 2048KB) and I think that does make quite a difference, or not?

Dutch Guy · 15 Jan 2008 at 13:14

semi-pro waster said:
4gb Ram would still give you about 3.5gb in XP (depending on the amount of Ram you have on your GPU)

Why does the GPU memory have an effect?

Hobgoblin · 15 Jan 2008 at 13:27

the OS looks at all the system memory you have, including video memory on cards and address's them so it can be used. 32bit OS's can only see 4GB so it needs to address everything thing else in your system as well as your RAM. so it will probably see around 3.5 or 3.2GB of RAM

melbourne720 · 15 Jan 2008 at 13:37

Dutch Guy said:
I know that the upcoming 8x00 CPU's will be faster but as I don't use the computer that often it has to be sort of a budget solution so I guess that those are too expensive.

In which case the e2xx0 series is made for you

Dutch Guy said:
I thought about a E2200 but they have a lot less cache (2x512MB vs 2x 2048KB) and I think that does make quite a difference, or not?

See my sig (e2160 Vs e6600) and steve258s post.

edit: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17784493

Dutch Guy · 16 Jan 2008 at 08:58

Thanks for the comparison links, unfortunately IMO the difference is big enough to possibly make the extra cache worth it.

melbourne720 · 16 Jan 2008 at 09:04

I when I had both chips I kept my e6600, and sold the e2160. I agree its a compromise, but its about how much you value the additional performance.

Dutch Guy · 16 Jan 2008 at 10:27

Am I right in thinking that the memory can never be the bottleneck when overclocking thanks to the dividers on the mobo?

Default is 2:3 but if the FSB is too high you can run at 1:1 and if that is too high you can run at 5:4, or do the dividers often give problems?

melbourne720 · 16 Jan 2008 at 10:42

The FSB is limited by the speed of the memory on Intel boards (Nvidia board don't have this issue). e.g. my rig, I have PC6400 RAM, with a stock speed of 400MHz (800MHz DDR2). With the RAM running at 1:1 against the FSB, i.e. the same speed as the FSB, my CPU can go up 400 x 9 = 3.6GHz. If I want to raise my FSB faster than that, I will have overclock my RAM.

So yes, memory can bottleneck the FSB because the memory cannot run slower than the FSB on intel boards.

Dutch Guy · 16 Jan 2008 at 11:51

melbourne720 said:
The FSB is limited by the speed of the memory on Intel boards (Nvidia board don't have this issue). e.g. my rig, I have PC6400 RAM, with a stock speed of 400MHz (800MHz DDR2). With the RAM running at 1:1 against the FSB, i.e. the same speed as the FSB, my CPU can go up 400 x 9 = 3.6GHz. If I want to raise my FSB faster than that, I will have overclock my RAM.

So yes, memory can bottleneck the FSB because the memory cannot run slower than the FSB on intel boards.

So the much safer option is to get a CPU with a multiplier like 9x, 10x or 11x so that the FSB when overclocking will be well below 400Mhz?

The other option is to get PC8500 memory but that is much more expensive.

melbourne720 · 16 Jan 2008 at 14:51

Basically yeah, I find that 9x seems to be the sweet spot between the max speed of your average chip, and the max speed of your average motherboard.

Less, and you push the motherboard more than the chip, and the motherboard will limit you.

More, and it doesn't really matter, because you can always lower it

But if you run a cpu on 11x, it will probably be maxed out before a P35 motherboard's FSB would.

Historically speaking, 8500 RAM isn't that expensive. I paid 160 about a year ago for my first batch of 2 x 1GB OCZ 6400, then about a quarter of that for the second, identical batch about 8 months later!