Clock speed problems

[Nagasama]

holy crap thats um, like 11 seconds better than my 4200.
which roughly translates to 75 dollars a second.
dang.

 

[Pinscher]

And I can almost get there on my OC'd e6300 lawl

Thats great for you but if I oc'd my qx6700, I could probly get it to around 10s so imo, what you can get with an overclock is irrelevant when comparing cpus like that. It would be a fair comparison if my cpu was oc'd too.

 

[NosBoost300]

Thats great for you but if I oc'd my qx6700, I could probly get it to around 10s so imo, what you can get with an overclock is irrelevant when comparing cpus like that. It would be a fair comparison if my cpu was oc'd too.

you'd need ln2 to hit 10's my friend .. i can only hit 12.9 at 3.9 ghz, and you'd need close to 5 ghz if not higher to have 10 seconds

 

[TriEclipse]

Thats great for you but if I oc'd my qx6700, I could probly get it to around 10s so imo, what you can get with an overclock is irrelevant when comparing cpus like that. It would be a fair comparison if my cpu was oc'd too.

The processors that are natively clocked high do not always guarantee higher overclocks, due to things like heat and the maximum capability of an architecture. Since they come from the same silicon, and the same architecture, it doesn't matter what the native clockspeed of a processor is; they will both end up relatively close to eachother. Just look at AMD's high-end processors; The FX-57 could barely overclock to 3Ghz, while a 4000+ reached the same speed. 3.0Ghz was the top speed for both of those processors, it didn't matter what the starting point was. A X6800 may end up as much as .2Ghz ahead of a E6300, but you can't say that that's worth the $800 difference in price, while keeping a straight face. Basically, a 2.93Ghz processor and a 1.86Ghz processor aren't that different once you start to overclock them; one just costs 5 times the other. Natively high-clocked processors are for those that don't overclock, for one reason or another, or have a lot of LN2 to play with.

 

[NosBoost300]

The processors that are natively clocked high do not always guarantee higher overclocks, due to things like heat and the maximum capability of an architecture. Since they come from the same silicon, and the same architecture, it doesn't matter what the native clockspeed of a processor is; they will both end up relatively close to eachother. Just look at AMD's high-end processors; The FX-57 could barely overclock to 3Ghz, while a 4000+ reached the same speed. A X6800 may end up as much as .2Ghz ahead of a E6300, but you can't say that that's worth the $800 difference in price, while keeping a straight face. Basically, a 2.93Ghz processor and a 1.86Ghz processor aren't that different once you start to overclock them; one just costs 5 times the other. Natively high-clocked processors are for those that don't overclock, for one reason or another, or have a lot of LN2 to play with.

agreed 100%

 

[Pinscher]

I will give it to tri. Very well stated. Well I guess I'm just that guy who prefers not to overclock, at least until I understand it a lot better.

EDIT: oh ya, I am looking for a new HSF because my cpu temp. is running around 50C when I'm doing next to nothing. What would you recommend?

 

[TriEclipse]

Zalman 9700 ($60).

 

[Pinscher]

Thanks Tri. I will probably be buying that either tomorrow or friday.