# Help me choose a cpu.



## mosheen (Jun 30, 2009)

Hi guys,

I need to buy a new cpu in the next week or so and i still cant make up my mind.
i used to have an e5200 MO oc to 3.75ghz. (sold it for ~$100 ).

My budget is limited to about $150 and i plan to change the cpu again next year to get a quad before the 775 platform dies.

My M/B being a p43 has a max fsb 420 (ram 800mhz), thts why im looking at e5200,e6300,e7400,e7600 for overclocking (aiming for atleast 4ghz). i dont need a quad, its just for gaming.

Ive got a friend going to Hong Kong on the 12 so prices should be similar to prices in the US. But he wont be getting the new cpu having VT (new e5300,e5400,e7400 are suppose to get VT later next month). VT for Win 7 i guess.

Me i love the e5200 and i hear the RO stepping is better, e6300 has VT, e7400 has 3mb cache, e7600 has 3mb+VT+11.5 multi .

Anybody knows if the e7600 is the lattest or is intel planning on an e7700??


----------



## DreamSeller (Jun 30, 2009)

what about an E8200 ?


----------



## mosheen (Jun 30, 2009)

My M/B wont be able to OC it that well. the best my board will be able to achieve is 3.36ghz
(420*8) i need something with an fsb of 1066.
I hear the e6300 are oc pretty well avg of 4.3ghz @1.4v.

The e6300 @4.3ghz will be faster than the e8200 @ 3.36ghz in my opinion.


----------



## roast (Jun 30, 2009)

The only two chips in your list I would go for (mostly because I have had OC experience with them) is the e5200 and the e7600. The E7600 has an 11.5 multi, which is decent, but the E5200 has a 12 multi. The E5200 I had a great experience with. With the M0 stepping, I shoved the QDR FSB up to 1066, so got lovely speeds of 3.33GHz pretty much out of the box. I fiddled around with it a bit more, and got great speeds of 3.5GHz on air, without any voltage modification.

Hope this helps.

-Mick.


----------



## mosheen (Jun 30, 2009)

My previous e5200 was running at 3.75ghz (341*11) 1.4v, they have fsb walls afaik.  i know how to OC a bit and i want nothing less than 4ghz. 

Now im more inclined towards the e6300 as they can achieve an fsb of 400-420 with the multi of 10.5 im sure 4.2ghz won't be a problem.


----------



## hat (Jun 30, 2009)

45nm E6300 is looking good. Gotta love how everyone instantly jumps for the E7600 since it's the highest spec'd processor in your list, heh. To me, as an overclocker, stock clock speed does not matter. The E6300 has a multi of 10.5... 400FSB isn't much of a task for Intel boards and that's already over 4GHz with that multi. Sure it's only got 2MB cache but as your FSB increaces the importance of cache decreaces, as the FSB speed is the link of the processor with the rest of the system.


----------



## mosheen (Jun 30, 2009)

who has an e7600?
how well does it OC compared to e7400??


----------



## mosheen (Jul 1, 2009)

Bump


----------



## kurosagi01 (Jul 1, 2009)

wait so the E6300 is better than a E6320?? if an E6300 can overclock that high that means i can aswell but whats holding me back is my stupid motherboard and my ram don't have heatsink so i don't want overclock to 3.2GHZ or is it safe i don't know.


----------



## mosheen (Jul 1, 2009)

im looking at the pentium dual core e6300 45nm (wolfdale-2m) not the core 2 duo e6300 65m (conroe i think). What was intel thinking?? Just creating confusion.

i had a C2D e6300 B2 before at only (422*7)2.95ghz 1.2v. it wouldn't clock higher due to fsb wall of my board. 
Btw your e6320 has 4mb of cache .

cpu's with fsb 1333 need atleast 1066mhz DDR2 ram to help OC higher.


----------



## Asylum (Jul 1, 2009)

Well if you have a FSB wall on your board it wont matter what chip you get it still wont clock any higher than the other chip!!
What you should have done is get a better board and ram....Then you could have clocked that 5200 on up seeing how its the best overclocker on the low end chips!!


----------



## mosheen (Jul 1, 2009)

i knew the limitaton of the p43 chipset before i bought it. P35 are no longer available here and the p45 were twice as much.

p43/ddr2 800 is ideal to match with e5x00/e6x00/e7x00 as long as the fsb is 800/1066.

e7600 @ 4.8ghz (420*11.5)
e6300/e7400 @ 4.4ghz (420*10.5)
thats just in theory . you've got to love high multipliers.

for a 24/7 setup with decent voltage(1.4v maybe 1.45v) i dont think i 'll reach those speeds.


----------



## mosheen (Jul 2, 2009)

Bump


----------



## boomstik360 (Jul 2, 2009)

I say go for the E6300 or the E7400, can't go wrong with either. Though the e7400 would be abit better of a jump from your e5200 since it has more L2 Cache, it isn't much more but every bit helps.


----------



## mosheen (Jul 2, 2009)

i like the new pentium dual core series. best value for money for me.
i couldn't find much information about overclocking the new e6300.

if a e6300@4.3ghz can match a e7400@4.2ghz then i'm set.

even if it needs 1.45v


----------



## hat (Jul 3, 2009)

kurosagi01 said:


> wait so the E6300 is better than a E6320?? if an E6300 can overclock that high that means i can aswell but whats holding me back is my stupid motherboard and my ram don't have heatsink so i don't want overclock to 3.2GHZ or is it safe i don't know.



There are two E6300 now... the origional 65nm 1.86GHz model and a new 45nm 2.8GHz model. We're talking about the 45nm model in this thread.


----------



## mosheen (Jul 3, 2009)

BUMP 

e7400 leading  . is the extra cache really worth it?


----------



## zuzullo (Jul 3, 2009)

*X6800*

You can find an old Extreme X6800 now for nearly the same price as those e7xxx! Wouldnt you consider that?

I am having the old e6300 OC at 2.8ghz and I was considering the X6800 as my next move but you have not considered that. Why?

It has a unlocked multiplier!!!


----------



## mosheen (Jul 3, 2009)

can they hit 4.2ghz-4.3ghz?? 
with a max temp of 60 degrees that might be difficult as they are 65nm.
i dont have top notch air cooling either. 

the wolfdales must be faster clock for clock


----------



## mike047 (Jul 3, 2009)

The e6300 wolfie under volts very well and runs "cool".


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Jul 3, 2009)

7400


----------



## zuzullo (Jul 3, 2009)

*X6800*



mosheen said:


> can they hit 4.2ghz-4.3ghz??
> with a max temp of 60 degrees that might be difficult as they are 65nm.
> i dont have top notch air cooling either.
> 
> the wolfdales must be faster clock for clock



Should it be? Otherwise why the unlocked multiplier?
I run my OC on air as well. E6300 OC is still under 55°C. I was expecting proportional results considering that the X6800 is the same family as my E6300. Maybe it is not so linear once we start playing with the multiplier!?


----------



## mosheen (Jul 3, 2009)

temp increases linearly with speed but exponentially with voltage.

that 60 degrees max temp is a killer.



> i had a C2D e6300 B2 before at only (422*7)2.95ghz 1.2v. it wouldn't clock higher due to fsb wall of my board.



tht e6300 was idle25/load45 with my CM N520 

i dont even think that cpu even exist in my country though. 
here they think dual cores are rubbish and 9500gt 1gb is cutting edge


----------



## mosheen (Jul 5, 2009)

Is VT worth it??


----------



## mosheen (Jul 8, 2009)

q6600 or q8200??


----------



## Ketxxx (Jul 8, 2009)

I wouldn't waste your money on a stopgap CPU just to replace it next year. Have you considered a Q8200/8400? Their pretty cheap. I got my Q8400 for £137, checking the egg they have it for $185 and the Q8200 for $160. I recommend the Q8400 for its 8x multi, Q8200 only has a 7x multi.


----------



## mosheen (Jul 8, 2009)

why did intel stop making quads with 1066 fsb?? 1333 sucks for overclocking. 

I'm counting  on getting a cheap q9650 when they reach EOL. I hope they'll be affordable by that time.


----------



## Ketxxx (Jul 8, 2009)

1066 chips aren't that hot, my Q8400 happily does 3.7GHz on 1.38v. The new quads are also that bit faster than the old and musty 65nm quads. The extra cache of more expensive quads, for the most part, is also overkill. When you look at prices you see you largely pay for cache with intel, find a happy medium like a Q8400/9400 and be happy in the knowledge of your not really losing any performance while not having to sell a few limbs either.


----------



## mosheen (Jul 8, 2009)

true
but i'll never be able to clock them that high max m/b fsb of 420.
q8200 = 2.94ghz
q8400 = 3.36ghz
an e7600@4.4ghz will surely beat those 2 .
i dont want to change my m/b. Its so stable . 
Or get an e7600 and be done with 775 platform?? 

my next build will definitely be an AMD .


----------



## Ketxxx (Jul 8, 2009)

Used a different BIOS? Asus probably increased that FSB limit.


----------



## mosheen (Jul 8, 2009)

I'm using the latest bios 1001.
I've read reports of fsb 410-420 limit on the intel p43 chipset.
Do you really think its bios related?? coz i've never seen a p43 reach higher than 425mhz except here where they reached 507mhz.
Was looking for p5ql(p43) modded bios also but could only find p5q(p45) modded bios  .
Well got till saturday to decide.


----------



## mosheen (Jul 9, 2009)

Lynnfield i5 is looking very promising. 
What if i get an e7600 and call it a day for 775???
i5 would be much cheaper than an q9650, and i doubt they'll come down in price
Help me decide


----------



## mlee49 (Jul 9, 2009)

For $140 you can find an e8400 used.  If you dont want to go used then I say the e7000 series are extremely well overclockers.


----------



## mosheen (Jul 9, 2009)

E8400/Q8200 is still selling for $230-$240 here.  Wont find a used one here either.
E7400 selling for $165. E7500 & E7600 N/A.
E5200 $105. E5300, E5400 & E6300 N/A.
should i skip quad on 775 completely???
You guys living in the US are so lucky.

What speed must i clock an e7600 to match an e8400@4ghz??


----------



## mosheen (Jul 9, 2009)

anyone with an e7600??


----------



## boomstik360 (Jul 9, 2009)

Probly around 4.2ghz it would be equal.


----------



## Ketxxx (Jul 9, 2009)

I'll be making a lot of P5Q series modded BIOSes, so its worth giving one of them a shot.


----------



## mosheen (Jul 10, 2009)

i lapped my previous e5200 with hardly any difference in temp.
is it worth lapping an e6000/e7000???


----------



## Ketxxx (Jul 11, 2009)

Some like to do it just to know the IHS is actually flat. Personally, I would focus on your coolers surface area before lapping a CPU. For a E7600 to be equal to a E8400 @ 4GHz you will be looking to clock the E7600 to around 4.3-4.4GHz, which you simply just will not get unless you want to throw the thing under dice or something. 

Sometimes theres just no option but to bite the bullet  I would normally never recommend it, but have you tried ebay?


----------



## mosheen (Jul 12, 2009)

^&$%&$(&#^% 
my friend's sick, so he wont be going to HK afterall.
so i went to buy an e5300 for ~$100, i couldn't justify an extra $65 for an e7400.
how unlucky can i be???? got one with a vid of 1.2875!!!! 
it does 4ghz @1.46v though (333x12). still looking for the max fsb ~360. :shadedshu


----------



## AltecV1 (Jul 12, 2009)

on intel side:E5200,E8400,Q9400 or Q9550
on amd side:550BE,720BE,920 or 955BE
and there you go the MAIN cpus to choose from!! (dont hate the player hate the game)


----------



## Ketxxx (Jul 12, 2009)

Q9400 is exactly the same as the Q8400. The Q9400 just has 2MB extra cache which doesn't really help in anything and you pay a premium for that almost completely useless extra 2MB cache compared to the Q8400.


----------



## AltecV1 (Jul 12, 2009)

well quad cores are ment for multi threaded jobs where cache matters it is just my opinion!!!


----------



## mosheen (Jul 12, 2009)

well max fsb is 355 
i think i'll settle for 3.9ghz (355*11) @1.4v.
4ghz would be nice, but 1.46v for 24/7 is a tad high.
yesterday intelburntest yielded a max temp of 72*c@4ghz, idle 18*c on AUTO.
today its 80*c at 3.9ghz 1.4v and idle 35*c.
did i melt the ihs already off the core already (i know they're glued) or were the temp diodes still  breaking in??
are all the IHS  of the quads soldered or glued??


----------



## Ketxxx (Jul 13, 2009)

Cache only matters to a certain point, even on quads. Too much cache can hinder more than it helps as with more cache theres more latency involved. Theres negligable differences between a 4MB and 6MB quad from any tests I've looked at on the net, and even less of a difference with quads that have 8MB or 12MB cache. The last set of tests I looked at the Q8400 actually beat the Q9400 in almost every test. Hows that you ask? Its all down to that cache and the extra latency more cache introduces.

So in summary, if you want the best all-round performing quad it likely is the Q8400, unless you do extremely intensive CPU tasks where cache matters, such as when archiving, in which case a Q9400 might be a bit faster. Any quad with over 6MB cache though your not going to see much, if any, difference in any tasks you do.


----------



## AltecV1 (Jul 13, 2009)

Ketxxx said:


> Cache only matters to a certain point, even on quads. Too much cache can hinder more than it helps as with more cache theres more latency involved. Theres negligable differences between a 4MB and 6MB quad from any tests I've looked at on the net, and even less of a difference with quads that have 8MB or 12MB cache. The last set of tests I looked at the Q8400 actually beat the Q9400 in almost every test. Hows that you ask? Its all down to that cache and the extra latency more cache introduces.
> 
> So in summary, if you want the best all-round performing quad it likely is the Q8400, unless you do extremely intensive CPU tasks where cache matters, such as when archiving, in which case a Q9400 might be a bit faster. Any quad with over 6MB cache though your not going to see much, if any, difference in any tasks you do.



defending your quad i see anyway lets stop this pointless argument before we are going do get warnings from modes


----------

