is that true? from what ive seen with older CPU's the ES chips always clocked a good few hundred Mhz higher than what people could obtain with retail ones.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
E8500 is the CPU to get in january.
- Thread starter Perfect_Chaos
- Start date
is that true? from what ive seen with older CPU's the ES chips always clocked a good few hundred Mhz higher than what people could obtain with retail ones.
Part of that may be down to the unlocked multiplier on ES chips, i.e. you could use lower FSB and hence avoid chipset limitations.
On a retail chip to hit those kind of speed (4.7ghz) you would need a mobo capable of nearly 500(2000)FSB.
On a retail chip to hit those kind of speed (4.7ghz) you would need a mobo capable of nearly 500(2000)FSB.
Last edited:
Like that DFI one listed?
I'd be a bit wary of those, never had any luck with my DFI boards they never get stable.
Soldato
my dfi board (lanparty nf4 ultra-d) was the best overclocking board I have ever owned!
ive had 2 and didnt work as expected, this board didnt anyway for sure.. not with 3 different cpu's and about 3-4 sets of memory.
Soldato
Soldato
hmm well that's unfortunate. Got my 3700+ to 2.9ghz no problem and my 4400x2 to 3.03ghz.
Associate
looks good
Nice chip!
but the retail CPU will only have a multiplier of 6 so will need a FSB of 750mhz to hit 4.5 ghz, and it just an engineering sample it might not even be the core that goes into production.
How can it have a multi of 6 when the chip runs at 3.16?
6 x 333 = 1998
9.5 x 333 = 3163.5
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
considering there isn't really a single game out that you can distinguish the difference in speed between a 2.4Ghz and a 4Ghz now, i don't see how the extra 500Mhz is likely to help tbh. quad core is still the way to go. well tbh, if you're an overclock and constant, or even semi constant upgrader theres little reason to spend more than £50 on a chip, overclock it, then change your chip every 4 months. if you won't upgrade for ages, like 18months + then a quad core would be the better option.
also would think a 3.16Ghz dual core won't be the cheapest option for a chip? not sure what the range of dual core 45nm cpu's they are planning to release but assuming 2Ghz to max 3.33Ghz(poss 3.5Ghz) this will be between the 1st and 3rd fastest dual core, meaning probably as expensive, or more expensive than a quad core at 2.4Ghz. for benching, encoding, 3d work, 3dmark, anything the quad core would beat a 4.7Ghz dual core easily, and for gaming, they'd both be the same even at stock. a q6600 is easy to hit 3.6Ghz with water, i'v hit 4Ghz, 4Ghz air should be possible on at least some of the cheapest quad core penryn's, can't see a E8500 being useful anywhere really.
also would think a 3.16Ghz dual core won't be the cheapest option for a chip? not sure what the range of dual core 45nm cpu's they are planning to release but assuming 2Ghz to max 3.33Ghz(poss 3.5Ghz) this will be between the 1st and 3rd fastest dual core, meaning probably as expensive, or more expensive than a quad core at 2.4Ghz. for benching, encoding, 3d work, 3dmark, anything the quad core would beat a 4.7Ghz dual core easily, and for gaming, they'd both be the same even at stock. a q6600 is easy to hit 3.6Ghz with water, i'v hit 4Ghz, 4Ghz air should be possible on at least some of the cheapest quad core penryn's, can't see a E8500 being useful anywhere really.
Wow - take a look at Microsoft Flight Sim (FSX) a totally CPU bound 'game' it's pure CPU power that makes that sim tick so not everyone is looking for the same thing. I for one will be moving from my OC'd E6600 (3.2) onto the dual core E8500 and seeing how much I can get out of it on air.
Denno