• 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.

Crap 2.4Cs

R

Rabid Yellow Dog

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 21, 2003
Messages
153
I just want to know how many of you have 2.4Cs that aren't stable at 3ghz. I get bsods and shit and upping the voltage beyond 1.6 volts just gives me more bsods. I'm pissed. How many of you guys are in my position or a similar one?
 
normally, a 2.4c overcloks to about 3.2 - 3.4, with some of the newer steppings- sl6z3 runnning up to 3.6+. are u sure it isnt a memory of mb prob? have u tested the cpu with a 3/2 divider to eliminate memory failure?
 
i got 1gb mushkin pc3500 level 2. i did 70 passes of memtest at 250 fsb 5:4 2-2-2-6 2.8v with no errors, so it's definately not the ram
 
thats not common to only oc that speed with a 2.4c. but sometimes it happens. when the newer 1.8c' came out last year that were overclocking to 3.3-3.5 mine would only do 2.7 2.8 man i know how u feel. can u sell this one and try for another?
 
All you could do is sell them I guess. If you had tons of money and we're going to buy an EE or something, you could buy about 5 2.4C and one of them would probably be a good overclocker.
 
I actually had one of those so called "desireable" steppings of the 2.4C and I couldn't get it past 2.6GHz no matter what I did on an Asus P4C800. No matter what speed I ran my memory at.

CAS latencies and everything had no effect. The system just wouldn't post any higher. I adjusted the voltage to every setting the board would allow me. Still no dice. I sold the chip after that.
 
Originally posted by Sir-Fragalot
I actually had one of those so called "desireable" steppings of the 2.4C and I couldn't get it past 2.6GHz no matter what I did on an Asus P4C800. No matter what speed I ran my memory at.

CAS latencies and everything had no effect. The system just wouldn't post any higher. I adjusted the voltage to every setting the board would allow me. Still no dice. I sold the chip after that.
Click to expand...

people that buy cpu's based on steppings are just dumb (not saying that you did it, but i'm talking about all those people who wanted M0 stepping 2.4c's, then complain when they don't oc good), it's all luck when trying to get a good cpu, well...luck or a lot of money. The only way to get a sure thing is to buy it from someone who already oc'd it or go by the batch #...such as the L321 malay's, cpu's from the same batch usually oc around the same speeds.

i've gotten pretty lucky with my 2.4c's, my first one hit 3.4ghz and this second one does 3.5ghz
 
i used to have my 2.4c at 3.36 with a vantec aeroflow, but the TMD fan on that bitch broke.

so i put the stock HSF on and ran it at 3.0 and it idles at around 32c.

i just bought one of the 'alcu' zalmans (whew, its quiet) and have it back up at 3.24ghz idling at 35c, silent.
 
Originally posted by PureBooYah
people that buy cpu's based on steppings are just dumb (not saying that you did it, but i'm talking about all those people who wanted M0 stepping 2.4c's, then complain when they don't oc good), it's all luck when trying to get a good cpu, well...luck or a lot of money. The only way to get a sure thing is to buy it from someone who already oc'd it or go by the batch #...such as the L321 malay's, cpu's from the same batch usually oc around the same speeds.

i've gotten pretty lucky with my 2.4c's, my first one hit 3.4ghz and this second one does 3.5ghz
Click to expand...

I didn't. I bought that CPU because it was at a good price. Then I tried to OC it simply because I read about everyone's good experiences with it. It failed miserably to OC. I just got a bad one.

But my 2.0A goes to 2.65 on stock cooling and voltages.
 
Originally posted by PureBooYah
The only way to get a sure thing is to buy it from someone who already oc'd it...i've gotten pretty lucky with my 2.4c's, my first one hit 3.4ghz and this second one does 3.5ghz
Click to expand...
do you still have the 2.4 that did 3.4?:D
 
Tell me again how your processor is crap just because it won't run 600mhz over rated speed? Oc'ing is a crapshoot...always has been always will be.
 
Originally posted by Rabid Yellow Dog
do you still have the 2.4 that did 3.4?:D
Click to expand...

it's about 50ft away from me in my friends/neighbors apt.

i put it in a machine i built for him. it's now running at 2.9ghz cause he got some crappy geil ram that doesn't like running 5:4 or 3:2 at higher fsb.

sorry :)
 
Hi there,

I setup mine about 2 weeks ago and I'm a little bit disappointed with my results compared to what I've seen here!

I run stable at 3Ghz but à 1.625Vcore while I read about people getting to 3.2-3.3Ghz on stock voltage... I have an IC7-MAX3 with Sp-94/92mmTornado with corsair PC4400 so I can only imagine it's my cpu.

I can get into windows at 270fsb but Prime95's torture test won't last a minute. Same thing if try for 250 at stock voltages...

If hadn't been able to reach 3Ghz at all then I guess I would have been extremely disappointed :p.
 
Originally posted by joemama
Tell me again how your processor is crap just because it won't run 600mhz over rated speed? Oc'ing is a crapshoot...always has been always will be.
Click to expand...

Yeah theres a reason the manufacturer didn't sell it at the 600MHz speed increase you've chosen to shoot for.

Saying a processor is crap just because it won't do what it wasn't intended to do by design in the first place is retarded.
 
Originally posted by joemama
Tell me again how your processor is crap just because it won't run 600mhz over rated speed? Oc'ing is a crapshoot...always has been always will be.
Click to expand...
Originally posted by Sir-Fragalot
Yeah theres a reason the manufacturer didn't sell it at the 600MHz speed increase you've chosen to shoot for.

Saying a processor is crap just because it won't do what it wasn't intended to do by design in the first place is retarded.
Click to expand...
First of all, wouldn't a 2.4C that doesn't run 3.0 be crappier than one that does? Second, I am not angry at Intel or anyone else. I am dissapointed that my chip did not meet my expectations based on other consumers' experience and advice. Either offer advice or don't, but don't preach at me.

edit: I'm not a newbie anymore. Yay!
 
anyway, in the case that I do sell my chip and buy a new one, which one would you guys recommend? Should I get another 2.4C, a 2.6C, a 2.8C, a 2.4A or what? There are some reports of crazy OCs (4ghz) on the 2.4As but they are PrescHot and they don't have HT.
 
I have a shitty 2.6C that only hits 2.9, 1:1 ratio. I have a 512MB stick of Kingston PC3700RAM, and it sucks.
 
at 5:4 it can hit 3.2GHz, but craps out on Prime95, amoung required voltage increases that also throw the temps up to 68.5C.
 
Used to have an old bum 2.4C that won't do 3.0 GHz with any stability.

I can POST @ 3.00 GHz, 1.65V, but she won't load into Windows.

Was running:

ABIT IC7-MAX3 & Asus P4C800-E DLX
2x256 MB Corsair XMS3700. (With voltage jacked to 2.9V at 3-4-4-8 timings, memory will go past 250 FSB & is verified on my current rig)
SP-94 & 92mm Panaflo U1A Cooling Fan

CPU just would not do 3.00 GHz stable at all. Had PCI & AGP locked.

Was a Costa Rica Week 11 (3311).

Even reducing to 3:2 divisor at stock volts & 3-4-4-8 timings, CPU will not run stable at 3.00 GHz. :)

Fastest (and most stable) I was ever able to successfully run it? 2880 MHz (240x12) @ 1.6V, VDIMM @ 2.7 3-4-4-7

Just a bum chip (thank god it's long gone). :)
 
I got one of the early 2.4Cs (last June) and an Asus P4P800. It will not post at 3.0ghz. I ran it at 2.94ghz for a long time, but then recently dropped back to 2.91 (243fsb) since it wasn't prime stable. It still isn't prime stable, but it lasts about 6 hours before giving an error. Interestingly, if I choose the "Max fpu stress" option (minimal RAM tested), it is 24 hour prime stable, but if I do either of the other two options, I get errors after 6-10 hours. Quite odd. Sounds almost like the Northbridge is the thing that isn't liking the overclock, not the cpu.

The memory is at 3:2 already, despite being Corsair PC3200C2. Timings have no effect, spread spectrum off, and if I set it at 5:4 it's not stable past 235 fsb or so.

Despite what others say, I would call this a "crap" CPU _compared with_ others that are out there. But, the overclock is still nothing more than a nice free bonus. Anything was better than P3-866 that I replaced :)
 
overclocking voids the 3 year warrantee that comes with the retail chips, right? OEM 2.8C is only $15 more than the retail 2.4C on the egg. would i have a better chance of a high oc (>3.3) with the 2.8, or should i get another 2.4?
 
Originally posted by joemama
Tell me again how your processor is crap just because it won't run 600mhz over rated speed? Oc'ing is a crapshoot...always has been always will be.
Click to expand...

Can I get an AMEN. /\ DITTO THAT /\

Processors are usually sold in about 4-5 speed grades that cover that particular process's output.

Ex: 1.6a-2.2a (when Northwoods first came out)
They would bin them from 1.6-2.2 and some lucky people would get 2.4+, but if you happen to get a crappy chip it may only do 1.8Ghz. (so OC'd speeds typically range 1.8-2.6+Ghz because of higher voltage and better cooling)

They select the speed grades to match the process. For the 800Mhz "C" processors they released 2.4-3.2 (initially)
so the overclockers were getting 2.6-3.4+ b/c of the better cooling ,etc.

Sometimes you just get one of the chips that actually had to be binned down b/c it wouldnt run at the higher speeds. Most of the time though you get a chip that probably would have run at 3.0Ghz, but there's more demand for the 2.4C (cheaper) so they get made in to those.

Anyway, the fact that Intel is releasing 2.4A's means the Prescott core is sucking. They wouldnt work as the 2.8 533FSB no HT part. Granted with more voltage and better cooling they may do alright. But they arent doing well at default voltage with crappy cooling like OEM's use. So they have to rate them down to 2.4A's.

The current chip of choice should be the 2.6C or 2.8C to give you a high FSB and best OC if you get a good chip.

For those who want a higher chance of higher clocks get a 3.0C, but dont complain when someone with a 2.4C-2.6C at the same 3.6-3.8Ghz beats you up & down b/c of his higher FSB/bandwidth.
 
Originally posted by joemama
Tell me again how your processor is crap just because it won't run 600mhz over rated speed? Oc'ing is a crapshoot...always has been always will be.
Click to expand...
Originally posted by Sir-Fragalot
Yeah theres a reason the manufacturer didn't sell it at the 600MHz speed increase you've chosen to shoot for.

Saying a processor is crap just because it won't do what it wasn't intended to do by design in the first place is retarded.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that the same people who aren't being particularly helpful are the same ones that don't seem to know that there are some things you don't do when you try to get someone to accept the point you are trying to make.

1. Don't be sarcastic
2. Don't call people retards

Some people...:rolleyes:

I still would like to know if 2.8s oc substantialy more than 2.4s.
 
Actually my point is valid. There is a reason that the manufacturer didn't sell it at the higher speed. Some people have the illusion that they can always get a 2.4C and get it to 3.0GHz without paying 3.0C prices.

This kind of thinking is wrong. You can not always get this to happen. Overclocking is done at your own risk. It is done at the risk of system damage and early component failure.

And for some people that spend alot of time overclocking they could have actually gotten the faster chip and run it at there desired target speed for less money that the extra equipment needed to overclock their machine. Extra fans, heatsinks, water blocks and water cooling rigs. Custom cases and so on.

Many overclock for the challenge and the fun of doing something with their hardware. It's just like working on cars and getting all you can out of something. Sometimes that challenge is more fun than what you do with the final product anyway.

Calling a chip crap simply because it won't do what it wasn't supposed to do IS retarded. I am sorry if the truth is harmfull or wounds anyone's inner child, that is MY opinion. It may have been sarcastic but that was actually not my intention. I was merely stating that the manufacturers didn't sell the chip that way for a reason.

So why would you be upset with Intel or AMD for selling you a chip that operates at the speed it was rated to do? You know the score when you buy a 2.4C. You bought a 2.4C not a 3.0C. If you can get it past 3.0C speeds than lucky you. You got lucky or spent the additional time, and money to achieve that.

On another note..................

My post wasn't intended as a flame or anything. But I can see how it may have come off that way. I appoligize to anyone that may have been offended by the way that was put.
 
Originally posted by Rabid Yellow Dog
overclocking voids the 3 year warrantee that comes with the retail chips, right? OEM 2.8C is only $15 more than the retail 2.4C on the egg. would i have a better chance of a high oc (>3.3) with the 2.8, or should i get another 2.4?
Click to expand...

BTW some people report that they seem to have better luck OC'ing with boxed processors vs. OEM chips.

I don't see what the difference is. But I suppose it is possible that intel puts the "better" batches in the boxes and sell the rest to OEM's.
 
Originally posted by Sir-Fragalot
BTW some people report that they seem to have better luck OC'ing with boxed processors vs. OEM chips.

I don't see what the difference is. But I suppose it is possible that intel puts the "better" batches in the boxes and sell the rest to OEM's.
Click to expand...

I do believe you get better processors in the retail boxes.

It might be because the OEM processor are picked through by various retailers employees etc.

I know if I worked for a place with a tray of 1000 processors I would pick through them to find a cherry chip for me.... then maybe a few good ones for friends or to sell on ebay as a guaranteed OC chip, etc.

Then if there are a few people like me working at the place. Soon you have the top 10% of the chips picked through.

Or some place that sells pre-OC'd chips may buy a tray, pick out the top 50% of the chips then sell of the rest somewhere down the line.

So some of the best chips may be taken out.
 
Originally posted by Sir-Fragalot
Actually my point is valid. There is a reason that the manufacturer didn't sell it at the higher speed. Some people have the illusion that they can always get a 2.4C and get it to 3.0GHz without paying 3.0C prices.

This kind of thinking is wrong. You can not always get this to happen. Overclocking is done at your own risk. It is done at the risk of system damage and early component failure.

And for some people that spend alot of time overclocking they could have actually gotten the faster chip and run it at there desired target speed for less money that the extra equipment needed to overclock their machine. Extra fans, heatsinks, water blocks and water cooling rigs. Custom cases and so on.

Many overclock for the challenge and the fun of doing something with their hardware. It's just like working on cars and getting all you can out of something. Sometimes that challenge is more fun than what you do with the final product anyway.

Calling a chip crap simply because it won't do what it wasn't supposed to do IS retarded. I am sorry if the truth is harmfull or wounds anyone's inner child, that is MY opinion. It may have been sarcastic but that was actually not my intention. I was merely stating that the manufacturers didn't sell the chip that way for a reason.

So why would you be upset with Intel or AMD for selling you a chip that operates at the speed it was rated to do? You know the score when you buy a 2.4C. You bought a 2.4C not a 3.0C. If you can get it past 3.0C speeds than lucky you. You got lucky or spent the additional time, and money to achieve that.

On another note..................

My post wasn't intended as a flame or anything. But I can see how it may have come off that way. I appoligize to anyone that may have been offended by the way that was put.
Click to expand...

You don't have to spend any extra money or waste a lot of time to save money by overclocking. I'm running on the stock cooler that came with my 2.8, a little bit of AS5 I had anyway, and on stock volts I'm humming along at 3.2 ghz. It would have costed me about $100 more to get a 3.2C. I'm actually too cheap to spend $50 on good air cooling for the little extra benefit that it offers over stock cooling, and 3.2 is plenty fast for me.
 
Well you can get lucky. My 2.0A overclocks to 2.65 easy. I can get it to post higher than that but not stable on stock cooling.

My point is purchasing a processor at 2.4 for example and being upset when it doesn't do 3.0 is unrealistic. If you can overclock your processor and get more out of it then by all means its BONUS. But I think you should only purchase a processor that you'll be happy with at stock speeds. Then what you get later is all bonus.

Unless you've got the time and money to buy and resell chips that fall short of your goal.

I overclock too. But I wouldn't be real upset if my chip didn't. I am happy with the 3.06 and the fact that I got it to go faster is all bonus.
 
Better processors sold retail makes sense. So boxed 2.4 for $164 or boxed 2.6 for $181? Overclockers.com cpu database doesn't show much difference between them so the $17 difference doesn't seem worth it. I will need to find a use for the retail cooler........mmmmmmmmmmmm vid card moddage
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top