is the e6300 the best for oc'ing?

[Deleted member 24505]

i found this today-

http://www.thetechrepository.com/showthread.php?p=32#post32

it seems this guy is saying the low multi on the 6300 means it does'nt push the nb speed too high when you oc.it seems that the 6600 wont oc as high as a 6300 at its default 9x multi.

i'm no expert so can some of you read it too and give me your opinions.

thx.

 

[psychotix11]

6600 has more cache something that you can never make up for.

As for the speed issue that varies. It's really more dependant on what motherboard/ram you have then the CPU.

Also they are dealing the 965 boards, the new 680i boards don't seem to suffer the same issues.

 

[bcracer220]

6600 has more cache something that you can never make up for.

As for the speed issue that varies. It's really more dependant on what motherboard/ram you have then the CPU.

Also they are dealing the 965 boards, the new 680i boards don't seem to suffer the same issues.

u should do some research before saying that the cache can never be made up for. the best overclockers are e6300, e6400 and e6700. check out anandtech, an e6400 at 2.9 is as fast as, and actually beats an x6800 in some tests. now for which is the best overclockers, the e6400 and e6300 give u the best bang for ur buck. for an e6300 which only has a 7x multi u will need a p5b deluxe (maybe ds3) and some really good ram to reach a high overclock. the e6400 on the other hand has an 8x multi, therefore the ram doesnt need to go as high and u may do fine with just an s3. in terms of which is the better overclocker, it is purely dependant on stepping. some e6300s oc higher than e6400s or vice versa.

 

[psychotix11]

Cache can't be made up for. Please explain to me how you will add more cache to a chip?

Clockrates can be changed, cache can't.

If you buy a 6300/6400 you are stuck with 1mb cache. If you buy a 6600/6700 you have 4mb cache. The clock rate you can hit will vary based on the chips (and as they make more which chips hit great OC's will change it always does), mobo, and ram.

Cache can't be cahnged.

 

[infrared]

Nope, the lower multiplier on the e6300 means that the northbridge has to work at higher frequencies. This is why the chip isn't suited to my motherboard, since it can only do roughly 450mhz fsb, which would get you 3.15ghz, whereas on my chip with the 8x multiplier i can go further.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

this-"What have we learned? #1: If you're looking to set FSB WR's you need to use a CPU with a low default multiplier so that you can focus on raising the FSB to sky-high values without sending you NBCC through the roof (preventing failure to POST) since you are mostly likely going to want to use a multiplier that doesn't limit you early by reaching maximum speed (7x, 6x, etc.) The E6300 is looking better by the day...."
is what the guy concludes,thats why my original question was,is the 6300 the best for oc'ing.

 

[psychotix11]

this-"What have we learned? #1: If you're looking to set FSB WR's you need to use a CPU with a low default multiplier so that you can focus on raising the FSB to sky-high values without sending you NBCC through the roof (preventing failure to POST) since you are mostly likely going to want to use a multiplier that doesn't limit you early by reaching maximum speed (7x, 6x, etc.) The E6300 is looking better by the day...."
is what the guy concludes,thats why my original question was,is the 6300 the best for oc'ing.

The answer is a yes but...

While being able to push a high FSB is great odds are you will reach the FSB limit before you reach the CPU limit. This is why having an unlocked MP (such as the 6800 or amd fx series offers) is so important.

Now for OC'ing for the sake of reaching the top FSB yes that logic is fine. However if you're trying to OC to see the max the chip can handle, or for actual performance it's a different ball game.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

so is a high cpu speed(mhz) with a low fsb,with a higher multi better? or a high cpu speed(mhz) with a high fsb and low multi better? if you get the question.

what i'm after is as high an oc possible(stable) with as low a vcore as possible.i'm probably gonna settle for is 3.5ghz (500fsb) with mem at 1000 1:1 with the vcore as low as possible to keep the temp down.

also is it only a higher vcore that makes the temp go up? or does high mhz make the temp go up to?

sorry for all the questions people,but i yearn to learn.lol

 

[psychotix11]

so is a high cpu speed(mhz) with a low fsb,with a higher multi better? or a high cpu speed(mhz) with a high fsb and low multi better? if you get the question.

There is no real answer for that question. Having a high CPU speed helps, having a high FSB helps also.

It really depends on what ratio you're talking about.

 

[pt]

the higher the fsb the better

 

[infrared]

Well, fsb isn't really a bottleneck at 333mhz upwards imho. But it's useful to go higher than that to match the memory, keeping a 1:1 divider.

For example tigger, over in the Sciencemark thread, i was running 450mhz fsb, you were running 550mhz fsb or something and the rigs were matched. This shows clearly that a high multiplier to increase the core frequency of the cpu doesn't reduce performance by reducing the FSB slightly.

If you can get 450-500mhz fsb, and memory to match, and a cpu that will hit it's ceiling at roughly that fsb with good multiplier... That is a well balanced system. There is no need for 600mhz fsb

 

[Deleted member 24505]

upto now it seems my max fsb with this ram(coz i cant run it at nothing but 1:1) is 560fsb.that was the unstable 3.9ghz.i reckon it just needed more than the 1.475v i was giving it tho'.from what i've been reading.these are ok upto 1.5vcore with a good air cooler.

i think i am gonna try for 3.5ghz (500fsb) stable with ram at 1000mhz 1:1.it will be pretty fast at that and it cant hurt having the ram at 1000mhz 1:1.

do you think this will be ok and balanced at all infrared?.thx

 

[infrared]

Yep, that will be a nice ballanced, and most importantly stable system!

By stable in this case, i mean in the long run