First Build: Mediocre Setup

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brand name such as ASUS MSI GIGABYTE etc. And also make sure that it has the correct FSB for the CPU
 
lancec2c30 said:
o well lets just say no comparison. That e6300 would run laps around the x2 4200. :D

c'mon lance.
i wouldn't say laps around it.
a 64-6600 yes indeedy. the 6300 will be very close performance wise (yes i love amd, but intel is fantastic, too).
 
nagasama said:
c'mon lance.
i wouldn't say laps around it.
a 64-6600 yes indeedy. the 6300 will be very close performance wise (yes i love amd, but intel is fantastic, too).

You're right, that is until you overclock, then it'll be pretty substantial.
 
austin, i'm still iffy about that = aiee.
although i have read of 6300's going into the 3's...
i plan to press mine that far too.
so far it's stable at 2.7-8
not that far to go.
but, as far as the technology goes...i would have to agree that the o.c. ability of the conroe is much more user friendly, haha.
i work pretty hard at pressin my little chip....
probably will upgrade to 6400 if amd doesn't come out w/ an answer in the next year or so...
and really only because i think i will have reached (/ surpassed haha) my 4200's ability by then.
 
nagasama said:
austin, i'm still iffy about that = aiee.
although i have read of 6300's going into the 3's...
i plan to press mine that far too.
so far it's stable at 2.7-8
not that far to go.
but, as far as the technology goes...i would have to agree that the o.c. ability of the conroe is much more user friendly, haha.
i work pretty hard at pressin my little chip....
probably will upgrade to 6400 if amd doesn't come out w/ an answer in the next year or so...
and really only because i think i will have reached (/ surpassed haha) my 4200's ability by then.

The 4200's and E6300's clock speed aren't equivalents, so a 3.0+ e6300 would take the 3.0+ 4200 easily, and like you said, overclocking the 4200+ probably isnt even close to being as easy as the core 2 duos. Also, the 6300's can get that high with air cooling, I'm not sure about the 4200's.

I did a quick google search and came across this picture (I wont post due to the size of it) http://img166.echo.cx/img166/4978/11x291spi1m0nw.jpg
So, based off of that, this guy's 4600+ is OC'ed at 3.2, and it does a 1m superpi in 26.89 seconds. My stock 6300 can do a 1m superpi 29.5 seconds, so a little under 3 seconds more comparing oc'ed vs stock. I plan on OCing once I get some better RAM, but my friend decided to OC his 6300 to around 2.3 and was able to hit 25.something seconds on the 1m superpi. So I'm just saying, it's a pretty substantial difference.
 
lookin at pics, i notice he also uses ddr ram.
do you think that has something to do with his score?
and yeah, 4.5 seconds is a pretty substantial difference for sure...i just wonder where you see that difference in applications?
2 things;
i have air cooling, and i am pretty sure i can do it on air. my mobo is not the best o.cer... live and learn
when you say the clock speeds are not equivalent, what do you mean exactly?
 
nagasama said:
when you say the clock speeds are not equivalent, what do you mean exactly?

I meant like a 4200 at 2.4 isn't the same as an E6300 at 2.4.


You probably wont see much of a difference in our CPUs unless you're doing something with audio/video editing or image/graphic rendering. Right now it seems hardware is going too fast for software.
 
I think the 4200 stock is 2.2, and the e6300 stock is 1.8. Like austin said if you oc a 4200 and a 6300 to 2.8, the 6300 has to oc .4 more ghz to get there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom