Which socket 939 64 X2 for overclocking

saguy · 10 Oct 2006 at 14:56

A while back I posted that I was not going to bother with dual core just yet as games are optimized for single core. Gothic 3 which is coming out this week and the next generation of games are optimized for dual core so it is time to upgrade as I predict my current CPU will struggle. (Or not?)

I want to stick with socket 939 as upgrading to a new motherboard and memory and CPU is going to be too expensive. I need something that is going to keep me going for another 18 months.

My options are:
64 X2 3800+ Socket 939, Manchester, 2 x 2.0GHz, 1MB Cache = £99.80
64 X2 4200+ Socket 939, Manchester, 2x 2.2GHz, 1MB Cache = £132
64 X2 4400+ Socket 939, 2x 2.2GHz, 2MB Cache = £155
64 X2 4600+ Socket 939, Manchester, 2x 2.4GHz, 1MB Cache = £158

I will be overclocking and I have no idea which of these overclocks the best. I would like to aim for an overclock of about 2.6GHz on air if that feasible.

mikeymike · 10 Oct 2006 at 15:11

go for the 3800+ and hope for the best :]

Tetras · 10 Oct 2006 at 15:20

I doubt dual core will make a sudden hit like that, sure those games may be optimised but to what degree? And even if they aren't what about all the people with single cores?

Wait until you really need more than one core and do a complete overhaul, for games your worrying too early, that CPU is at least around 64 3700+ in performance which is still more than most.

saguy · 10 Oct 2006 at 15:44

Tetras said:
I doubt dual core will make a sudden hit like that, sure those games may be optimised but to what degree? And even if they aren't what about all the people with single cores?

Wait until you really need more than one core and do a complete overhaul, for games your worrying too early, that CPU is at least around 64 3700+ in performance which is still more than most.

I will probably do a wait and see. I know the current gen games are very much graphic card dependent. Gothic 3 is reported to run 30% faster with dual core.

squiffy · 10 Oct 2006 at 15:45

Aren't X2 Toledo cores? My X2 says so.

Cal_G · 10 Oct 2006 at 15:57

My 3800 is deffo a Manchester, are the Toledo not failed versions of the higher cache chips with the extra cache disabled?

ots3go · 10 Oct 2006 at 16:05

Cal_G said:
My 3800 is deffo a Manchester, are the Toledo not failed versions of the higher cache chips with the extra cache disabled?

Toledo is the higher cache chip ain't it :confused:

OP - i'd take the 4400+ for OCing

Tetras · 10 Oct 2006 at 16:06

Toledo = 939 X2 4400+, 939 X2 4800+ (2MB cache, 1MB per core)

Manchester = 939 X2 3800+, 939 X2 4200+, 939 X2 4600+ (1MB cache, 512KB per core)

Can have Toledo cores show up in CPU-Z where usually would be Manchester (like on an X2 3800+), think they are Toledo with half the cache disabled.

trojan698 · 10 Oct 2006 at 16:10

^ what he said re toledo and manchesters.

I'd go for the 3800+ and overclock. The cache supposedly doesn't make a massive difference anyway - ie nowhere near the 200mhz generally quoted.

KillBoY_UK · 10 Oct 2006 at 18:00

i say the 4400 i got a 3800 back in Septemper could only get 2.5ghz under 1.5v , a 4400 will mostliky do 2.7 ish making speed wise like a 3800 at 2.9ghz ish , i last week upgraded from 3800 to a good steping opteron 165 (1.8ghz 1mb per core) and is clocking 3ghz+ with less volts , and the differance from my old 3800 overclock is massive

Cal_G · 10 Oct 2006 at 18:01

Tetras said:
Toledo = 939 X2 4400+, 939 X2 4800+ (2MB cache, 1MB per core)

Manchester = 939 X2 3800+, 939 X2 4200+, 939 X2 4600+ (1MB cache, 512KB per core)

Getting confused, any truth in what I said? I think 100% but my wording may not have been very good :rolleyes:

Tetras · 10 Oct 2006 at 18:39

I think Toledo cores in socket 939: X2 3800+/X2 4200+/X2 4600+ chips would be what you said yes.

Cyber-Mav · 10 Oct 2006 at 18:58

remeber by the time multi threading kicks off, quad cores will be around and if an application can make use of 2 cores then its very easy for it to make use of 4.

Mr Paul · 10 Oct 2006 at 21:52

I'm just waiting for delivery of my 4200+ Manchester, I'll let you know at the weekend

gurusan · 10 Oct 2006 at 22:28

4400 x2

'nuff said.

marms · 10 Oct 2006 at 22:56

I got a 4200+ last week and got a Toledo LCB9E 0634 and have it running 2.6Ghz on 1.225V

squiffy · 10 Oct 2006 at 22:58

marms said:
I got a 4200+ last week and got a Toledo LCB9E 0634 and have it running 2.6Ghz on 1.225V

Sounds like you've got CAQ enabled, best to disable it when overclocking. Disable it in the BIOS.

Stock vcore is 1.350, so if it's under that CAQ must be enabled (drops down to ~1.1v)

marms · 10 Oct 2006 at 23:13

squiffy said:
Sounds like you've got CAQ enabled, best to disable it when overclocking. Disable it in the BIOS.

Stock vcore is 1.350, so if it's under that CAQ must be enabled (drops down to ~1.1v)

I'm using it in an asus pundit barebones system so i dropped the voltage down because it only has a small heatsink and a 250w psu, i did have it at 2.75Ghz on 1.275v but it got very hot and the psu's only meant to run a 4600+ so i lowered it down again.
Here's the cpu-z verification
http://valid.x86-secret.com:80/show_oc.php?id=127486
http://valid.x86-secret.com:80/show_oc.php?id=127385

El Jimben · 11 Oct 2006 at 16:50

Hmm, why is the voltage not visable then eh? :rolleyes:

russty · 11 Oct 2006 at 17:30

If you want to hunt one down get a CCBIE 4400+. get 2.8Ghz on stock volts and 3Ghz at 1.525V on good air.

Absolutely flies.

Russty