![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
best intel proc?
- Thread starter kronchev
- Start date
I got my 2.8 to 3.5 stable 1:1, but when i had the OEM version of the processor, i could only get up to 3.2 so I picked up the retail box ver and noticed that it had more transistors (or whatever they are) on the underside of the CPU than the OEM one did, and it went up to 3.5.
RM_Bulldog
Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2003
- Messages
- 697
the EEs have more metal layers and this should make them more resiliant to OCing 
heat dissapation and all
heat dissapation and allchrisf6969
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2003
- Messages
- 9,011
YOU said IGNORING price. so a 3.4EE is it!
Taking price in to somewhat a consideration probably a 3.2C
price being important... (negating what you said)
the 2.8C is the best bang for buck probably. Its slightly higher clock (than a 2.4C or 2.6C) should at least guarantee a 3.1+ very minimum OC. And a lot of people are hitting 3.5Ghz at 250FSB which are nice round numbers. 1Ghz FSB with DDR500 or DDR400 with 5:4 ratio.
Taking price in to somewhat a consideration probably a 3.2C
price being important... (negating what you said)
the 2.8C is the best bang for buck probably. Its slightly higher clock (than a 2.4C or 2.6C) should at least guarantee a 3.1+ very minimum OC. And a lot of people are hitting 3.5Ghz at 250FSB which are nice round numbers. 1Ghz FSB with DDR500 or DDR400 with 5:4 ratio.
chrisf6969
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2003
- Messages
- 9,011
Originally posted by olaf2821
The Retail and OEM CPU's are the exact same. If yours is different, then it is because they are different types or steppings. And I think you mean resistors
A lot of people swear that retail processors OC better than OEM.
I think it could be real possibility that the OEM trays are picked through for the best OC'ing chips. I know if I worked at Dell or Newegg or someplace with OEM trays. I would take about 10 home and bring back 9 with the $ to pay for the 1 best one that I kept. Then imagine about 10+ other employees doing that... x 10-20 processors each. thats 100-200 processors picked through and all of the cherry ones are gone.
Or you could be getting left overs on a tray of processors used by a company like OCsystems.com or Azzo.com that sells pre-OC'd machines/CPU's and might have had to ditch the processors that didnt cut the mustard. (OC'd)
Without a large sampling of P4's it is all just speculation. But I don't see how that changes the fact that a retail 3.0GHz P4, same core, same stepping, is physically the same as an OEM 3.0GHz P4. There are no extra resistors, no changes. If he got a retail CPU, and it was different, then his claim that retail CPU's overclock better, is in fact invalid. If the CPU's are different he would have to prove that Intel, does in fact only ship certain batches or steppings to OEM's and that they are inferior, again with a large sampling of chips. Your assumption also assumes that Intel and Dell just let their employees walk out with trays of CPU's, or better yet that they don't have work for them to do, so they sit around and overclock CPU's and pull them off the line and buy them personally. I don't know where you have worked, but I don't see that as a very real possibility. At a small shop like Azzo it could a realistic chance, but the number of vendors like that hardly tip the scales enough to count when you take into consideration the volume of CPU's sold.
The most likely truth is that is luck of the draw, plain and simple. I would love if someone rounded up several hundred identical OEM & Retail P4's and proved one way or the other, but I doubt that will happen.
Originally posted by M4d-K10wN
In terms of %, a Celeron 300-A, you can attain more than 200% original clock speed on those chips
It was hard to get a 300a over 600mhz, over 600Mhz was pretty rare...
If I were to put my money on the highest % in overclocking I would go with the Celeron II 566. I have seen a couple go 1250-1300mhz.
And I have had about 3 Celeron II's go 1050-1180Mhz on air cooling.
Yes, but those were the days of crappy air cooling. Fast-forward to today, where you have phase change, water, peliters. You could OC one to over a GHZ, i'm sure.
Hmm, rite now i have a 466 Celeron 2. How much do you think i can get out of that?
Hmm, rite now i have a 466 Celeron 2. How much do you think i can get out of that?
chrisf6969
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2003
- Messages
- 9,011
It is very much luck of the draw. And everywhere has employee's picking certain cherry objects of themselves.. and I was saying that they would pay for them. But they just might try out a few first. Most places have problems with disappearing inventory (theft / liftage /etc) this isnt even theft its just testing a few out either at work (maybe afterhours or at lunch) or taking a few home a day to test, (maybe over a few days) until you get a perfect cherry one.
Hmm, i can only get 59 MHz overclock off this stupid celeron. Something must be holding me back, because it won't even load windows at higher fsb. And Quake III stopped working, no idea why. Doesn't even work at old freqency... I've had this before when i totally fucked up the OpenGL drivers on the radeon i ended up refunding, but i didn't change any numbers, and Warcraft III runs just fine in OpenGL. Oh well. It was fun , had to clear the CMOS a couple times because i picked a wrong fsb freqency (there are a bunch there, but it will only work with ones that have 1/2 in brackets, i have no idea what those mean. There's 1/3 and 1/4 too.
, had to clear the CMOS a couple times because i picked a wrong fsb freqency (there are a bunch there, but it will only work with ones that have 1/2 in brackets, i have no idea what those mean. There's 1/3 and 1/4 too.Geez you guys, i didnt mean to start an arguement about it, im assuming that the two cpu's i had were different steppings. I was just stating my experience as i dont remember that newegg states what stepping their cpu's are (which is where i got them both). But i sold the OEM so i cant check to see what stepping it was but them being physically different obviously means they were either made in a different location, were a different stepping, or were a higher clocked cpu that failed the tersting process.
lolololo
Celeron ppga had a 466 (original celeron) version. The original celeron 466 sucked at overclocking, I had one when it came out.
Celeron II (FCPGA based off the coppermine core) started at 533 Mhz.
The fact is I have bought nearly every celeron chip from 266 until about celeron/tualatin upon each launch. I *think* I know what I am talking about here.
Please by all means show me an article of any sort of the Celeron FCPGA 466. It doesn't exist.
PS:
Have you been overclockin in that time period?
From what I remember there was plenty of peltiers.. Actually I think peltiers were alot more common back then compared to today. Also watercooling wasn't that uncommon.
It didnt really matter much anyways because the excellent Alpha air coolers of the day cooled a celeron ppga chip to nearly ambient with a 2+v core voltage.