E2200 out !!

ojrules · 4 Jan 2008 at 18:49

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-190-IN&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=793

a good 0.2ghz faster than the e2180 for about £6 more at £60 what are your opinions, ps has anybody realised that all the other "pentium" dual cores are named rather stupidly, ( their names are 0.2 ghz behind their speeds) for example the e2140 is 1.6 , and the e2160 is 1.8ghz, however this one is named correctly.. i think i'l be getting one of these, the e2* series has always seemed a bargain and it seems about time i threw out my lovely 3.4ghz prescott..

this is also as fast as the e4500 priced at £82 , just with some cache left out, and i dont think that bothers many people... now if it werent for that £8 delivery... and they've got it in before ***** has .. top marks..

Richdog · 4 Jan 2008 at 18:51

What the **** are they playing at with this naming system... it's named LOWER than the CPU's that are below it...

Azza · 4 Jan 2008 at 18:53

Richdog said:
What the **** are they playing at with this naming system... it's named LOWER than the CPU's that are below it...

What?

2200 is more than 2180 and 2160 and 2140 in my book.

Mattus · 4 Jan 2008 at 18:57

Nice

Though the names are still stupid:

E2140 = 1.6Ghz
E2160 = 1.8Ghz
E2180 = 2.0Ghz
E2200 = 2.2Ghz

ojrules · 4 Jan 2008 at 18:58

Azza said:
What?

2200 is more than 2180 and 2160 and 2140 in my book.

i think he meant that the cpus should have the names of the ones after it, aka the e2180 should be named e2000

ojrules · 4 Jan 2008 at 18:59

-- posted twice oops

Richdog · 4 Jan 2008 at 19:00

Badly phrased sarcasm...

SDK^ · 4 Jan 2008 at 19:02

Who cares when you can O/C a 2140 to 3.2GHz with the stock cooler

Azza · 4 Jan 2008 at 19:17

Ah ok I get your crazy way of thinking now Rich.

Richdog · 4 Jan 2008 at 19:33

Azza said:
Ah ok I get your crazy way of thinking now Rich.

It's not usually that unreadable, i've just had a slow day.

ojrules · 4 Jan 2008 at 19:47

dont sweat it usualy my posts look like they have been written by a drunk and anrgy dyslexic 4 year old

QlimaxUK · 4 Jan 2008 at 19:48

few its a good thing i chose not to fully upgrade my system for now, iv been unsure if i should upgrade or not, iv got a p4 HT @ 3ghz atm (stock) iv already upgraded my graphics to the x1950, then not long after they released a 'slightly' better one for a little extra cost (extra 100 mhz on mem clock) was slightly onnoying, but my system can run all the latest games, just not in high settings (1024x768) with low detail settings, with the one exeption of bioshock which runs perfect with full detail settings

but im stuck between the Q6600 or an e2180 O/C'ed to 3 ghz to match my P4

and now they are offering free delivery for orders over so much where there is now a time limit to the end of this week!!!! id have to buy a Q6600 + other stuff ill need to get this offer, alternitivly i could now get the e2200 and pay delivery, IM STUCK, what should i do (remembering that i dont really 'need' this upgrade right now since my currect system forfills my requiremeants (just about))... Help lol

ojrules · 4 Jan 2008 at 19:51

id do e2180 if i were you, the upgrade would let you see a huge performance increase...

Munky1080 · 4 Jan 2008 at 19:56

For people with a limited FSB the e2200 is the way to go...I reckon it has an 11x multiplier.

QlimaxUK · 4 Jan 2008 at 20:06

i remain a little sceptical about all this new core2duo, i cant help but feel technology is moving backwards in a way since the pentium 4 managed to go all the way upto 3.6 Ghz at stock levels (maybe more i havnt checked) and these c2d are just about getting past the 2 ghz mark (im aware they make 3 GHz c2d's but there expensive!!!!) im only talkin about the cheap ones. since i paid £140 for my p4 that was a little longer then a year ago, so i still want to keep it in a way

i dont like overclocking cuz iv never done it before so im a little worried about damaging it and also how long it will last after being oc'ed

kvfb97 · 4 Jan 2008 at 20:11

Can't wait to see what these babies compare like against the e2140, 60 & 80 when overclocking.

steve258 · 4 Jan 2008 at 20:14

If it has the same stepping then it'll probably oc just like the rest.

SDK^ · 4 Jan 2008 at 20:41

QlimaxUK said:
i remain a little sceptical about all this new core2duo, i cant help but feel technology is moving backwards in a way since the pentium 4 managed to go all the way upto 3.6 Ghz at stock levels (maybe more i havnt checked) and these c2d are just about getting past the 2 ghz mark

P4’s had longer pipelines so did much less per clock cycle than a Core 2 Duo
A 1.8GHz Pentium Dual Core (2160) can sometimes even beat a Pentium D 960 at 3.6 GHz and it uses much less power - they are more efficient

Lightnix · 4 Jan 2008 at 20:46

Yep. The E4300 (a 1.8Ghz Core 2 Duo) makes the Pentium 570 (the 3.8Ghz P4) look slow. Clock speed isn't a measurement of performance, it's a factor towards performance.

PGdude · 4 Jan 2008 at 20:51

Lightnix said:
Yep. The E4300 (a 1.8Ghz Core 2 Duo) makes the Pentium 570 (the 3.8Ghz P4) look slow. Clock speed isn't a measurement of performance, it's a factor towards performance.

But its there and we can use it for great justice!

Seriously, I've been wondering where it has been, I've waited for it a while now