Bang for the Buck OC....

O

osk.ocelot

Weaksauce
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
85
I was just wondering which is the best bang for the buck overclockable intel chip right now. Looking to spend around 100 bucks for the best performance overclocked. I have the Asus Maximus Formula, Corsair 620 HX, and G.SKILL 4GB (2 x 2GB) (PC2 8000). Any help would be great.
 
I agree with the 7200 as well cheap little dualies that pack a hell of a performance punch.
 
E7400 comes out in not much time and has a new R0 stepping.

it could be enough to make you wait.
 
needmorecarnitine said:
might as well spend $20 more and get an E8400
Click to expand...

I think the E7400 will be a lot closer to an E8400 than that. $20-35 more for a lower multiplier(9 vs 10.5) and 3mb more cache(5-15% performance). Then again we don't have any overclock reports on the E7400 as it just hit japan if it's a poor OC then you will be right.
 
Another vote for the e7200. Its what I went with last month on a $500budget build. Mine's at 3.6Ghz and a new there are guys out there higher than me too.
 
+1 for the E7200. Cheap and very good multiplier. Make sure your ram can handle the bus speed.
 
The-One said:
E2180;););)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116052
Click to expand...

e5200 is the updated e2180. Everything the 2180 is, but better -- more cache, better overclockability, cooler running, and like $10 more. There is zero reason for an e2180 at this point in time. Pretty much zero reason for any of the 65nm chips right now.

e7200 is probably the best value. e5200 is "good enough". e8400 is okay, but potentially requires a larger investment in RAM and mobo because it want's higher FSBs in order to get to top clock speeds that justify purchase over an e7200, which really widens the gap between it and the e7200 in $$$ out of pocket more than just the $40 difference in the CPUs.
 
Concillian said:
e5200 is the updated e2180. Everything the 2180 is, but better -- more cache, better overclockability, cooler running, and like $10 more. There is zero reason for an e2180 at this point in time. Pretty much zero reason for any of the 65nm chips right now.

e7200 is probably the best value. e5200 is "good enough". e8400 is okay, but potentially requires a larger investment in RAM and mobo because it want's higher FSBs in order to get to top clock speeds that justify purchase over an e7200, which really widens the gap between it and the e7200 in $$$ out of pocket more than just the $40 difference in the CPUs.
Click to expand...

Okay, didn't know that. Awesome though. thanks for the info. But my next chip will be quad.:D
 
Yup, I have a e2180 and am looking at the e7200, e5200 or q6600. I keep changing my mind so I will pick one probably seconds before I order. Leaning toward quad right now.
 
e72 definitely...

i got an e5200 and it just isn't hitting the right clocks at all (topping out around 3.33ghz) so I'm guessing that *sometimes* the binning really *does* do what it is supposed to do and relegate the crappy chips to the low end parts.....
 
3.33Ghz is on the low end for a e5200 OC 3.4-3.6 seems average. Above 3.6 is good
 
Yeah I'd get the E7200 at this moment FTW.

You've got a major architecture change coming up, and $100 is not too much to spend on something that'll easily oc to 3.6 and beyond. The smaller cache makes the OC's easier too, but I hear that the E7200 are having a broad range of OC results.

A quad will allow you to multitask better, you can play a game, while encoding a divx or something without any stutters, I'm finding that between a 4.0GHz dual and a 3.6GHz quad, the computing experience isn't all too different. The chips are so fast now, it takes quite a bit to bog them down.
 
If you have a Microcenter near you, you can score some openbox processors for cheap! The one in Boston sells the e7200 for $84 and the e8400 for $120. Something to consider.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top