I have a e6320 processor

[chunt]

1.86 ghrz 4 mb cache and duo core was wondering what I could clock this bad boy up to to make this game run smoothly

[Jangang]

1.86 ghrz 4 mb cache and duo core was wondering what I could clock this bad boy up to to make this game run smoothly

I had that chip in my last computer. I had bought an aftermarket cooling fan, but it easily clocked to 2.4GHz. The motherboard wouldn't allow for independent CPU, and Ram overclocking though, and my ram was cheap shit. I had to turn it to lower settings manually, then w/ the overclocking it brought it back to 800 where it belonged. Anything over 2.4 took the ram to high and it stopped working.

I'm sure I could have got 2.6 or more easily if I had had better ram, or a motherboard that controlled that separately.

[Mr.LichTwitch]

Ask these people, (http://www.ocforums.com/) not us.

[Hyster]

1.86 ghrz 4 mb cache and duo core was wondering what I could clock this bad boy up to to make this game run smoothly

Use Bios by holding down Delete when starting up set FSB to 350 from 266, should make your CPU 2.45GHz AND DONT FORGET TO UNLINK THE FSB FROM THE MEMORY!!!!! the CPU has a FSB of 1066 but its really 266x7(CPU Multiplier changes from chip to chip and is locked most of the time)=CPU Speed and 266x4= FSB. when you make the FSB go up the CPU goes up with it. If u need more help feel free to ask i build computers for a living.

bump up the FSB by 4 at a time save and restart and keep doing it till 350 its the safest way to OC.

[Viluin]

http://xtreview.com/review192.htm

They managed to reach 3.6Ghz.

Btw, lawl @ Intel using old FSB technology. Srsly, move on to HyperTransport already like the rest of the world has. Maybe then people wouldn't have to upgrade to a new motherboard to support the latest CPU with its higher FSB, because everyone would have a 2.6Ghz HyperTransport bus that offers 41.6 GB/s of bandwidth.

Intel hasn't released an unlocked multiplier CPU, because overclocking by simply raising the multiplier has 0 benefits on their processors. They'd be bottlenecked by the FSB.

[Hyster]

http://xtreview.com/review192.htm

They managed to reach 3.6Ghz.

Btw, lawl @ Intel using old FSB technology. Srsly, move on to HyperTransport already like the rest of the world has. Maybe then people wouldn't have to upgrade to a new motherboard to support the latest CPU with its higher FSB, because everyone would have a 2.6Ghz HyperTransport bus that offers 41.6 GB/s of bandwidth.

Intel hasn't released an unlocked multiplier CPU, because overclocking by simply raising the multiplier has 0 benefits on their processors. They'd be bottlenecked by the FSB.

Wrong "Intel hasn't released an unlocked multiplier CPU" All Core 2 Extreme Series have unlocked multiplier. Next i know he could hit 3Ghz Easy but i wouldnt want to push more then 2.7 on a stock heatsink the link you posted showed them using a high end heatsink "zalman CNPS9700 LED" and last Intel said they would be moving to a new core without a FSB soon and for the old trashy FSB its still kicking the shit out of AMD 4000MHz Hyper Transport.

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/core2review/index.htm

"As noted above there is a small clock speed difference between the two products, there is also one significant feature for the enthusiast market. Whereas previous Extreme CPU's came with increased cache or HT the Core 2 Extreme comes with a very useful feature – an unlocked multiplier. If the Extreme processor is to be over clocked the unlocked multiplier opens up huge performance tweaking options. That said, there is a huge price difference between the 2.93 and 2.66 GHz models and if you aren’t a hard core overclocker it would be hard to justify the extra expense."

[Viluin]

Wrong "Intel hasn't released an unlocked multiplier CPU" All Core 2 Extreme Series have unlocked multiplier. Next i know he could hit 3Ghz Easy but i wouldnt want to push more then 2.7 on a stock heatsink and last Intel said they would be moving to a new core without a FSB soon and for the old trashy FSB its still kicking the shit out of AMD 4000MHz Hyper Transport.

Oh, right.. the Core 2 Extreme series no one buys because it costs 5x as much as an ordinary CPU that can be overclocked to the same level.

Intel's current FSB1600 architecture only has 1/4th the bandwidth of AMD's current HyperTransport implementation. Why do you think Intel has been raising the FSB so frequently, from 800 to 1066 to 1333 and finally 1600? For teh lulz? Hell no, it was bottlenecking their processors.

[iza]

Overclocking your proc won't help gaming at all (unless the rest of your rig is uber by comparison).
Bottleneck is almost always GPU, or possibly RAM or HDD. Most any modern processor is good enough for any game.

[Hyster]

Oh, right.. the Core 2 Extreme series no one buys because it costs 5x as much as an ordinary CPU that can be overclocked to the same level.

Intel's current FSB1600 architecture only has 1/4th the bandwidth of AMD's current HyperTransport implementation. Why do you think Intel has been raising the FSB so frequently, from 800 to 1066 to 1333 and finally 1600? For teh lulz? Hell no, it was bottlenecking their processors.

bottlenecking??? intels kicking the shit out of AMD with the 1066 FSB and overall they are 30-40% faster if anything the bottlenecking award goes to AMD's new x4 core that gets owned by a low end intel duel core clip with 1/4 the FSB. Hell lets not forget for 7 months only Intel Chips could use DDR2!

[Viluin]

bottlenecking??? intels kicking the shit out of AMD with the 1066 FSB and overall they are 30-40% faster if anything the bottlenecking award goes to AMD's new x4 core that gets owned by a low end intel duel core clip with 1/4 the FSB.

Please, look up the definition of bottlenecking. This is not some Intel vs. AMD debate. Intel had to keep raising the FSB of its newer processors because they were being bottlenecked by it. Had Intel moved to HyperTransport like everyone else in the world (The technology is not just used by AMD), they wouldn't have this problem. I'm just saying FSB is old old OLD. Better alternatives have been around since 2001.

Hell lets not forget for 7 months only Intel Chips could use DDR2!

That's because only DDR2-667 was available, which was benchmarking exactly the same as the cheap low-latency DDR-400. DDR2-533 was actually worse than DDR-400. AMD had no reason to support DDR2, until DDR2-800 was widely available.

[Hyster]

Please, look up the definition of bottlenecking. This is not some Intel vs. AMD debate. Intel had to keep raising the FSB of its newer processors because they were being bottlenecked by it. Had Intel moved to HyperTransport like everyone else in the world (The technology is not just used by AMD), they wouldn't have this problem. I'm just saying FSB is old old OLD. Better alternatives have been around since 2001.



That's because only DDR2-667 was available, which was benchmarking exactly the same as the cheap low-latency DDR-400. DDR2-533 was actually worse than DDR-400. AMD had no reason to support DDR2, until DDR2-800 was widely available.

give it up fanboy AMD sucks atm

[Viluin]

give it up fanboy AMD sucks atm

You retarded mongrel, I told you this had nothing to do with AMD. HyperTransport isn't even AMD's technology. They're just using it. Them and 4584393 others.

[Toilet]

Better alternatives have been around since 2001.

Alternatives have been around since 2001

Have been around since 2001.

Been around since 2001.

Since 2001.

I got ya, NWO freak!

[Hyster]

You retarded mongrel, I told you this had nothing to do with AMD. HyperTransport isn't even AMD's technology. They're just using it. Them and 4584393 others.

this has everything to do with AMD Vs Intel and you know it what cpu you using?

That's because only DDR2-667 was available, which was benchmarking exactly the same as the cheap low-latency DDR-400. DDR2-533 was actually worse than DDR-400. AMD had no reason to support DDR2, until DDR2-800 was widely available.

aww like i said before buy AMD if you want to play todays new games
Buy Intel to play 18 months from now new games.

if AMD thought ahead they would have put DDR2 in there for upgrades

[Hyster]

2x post plz remove

[Atua]

AMD is nice if you're on a budget. Otherwise Intel is faster 99% of the time. With a strong gpu, you won't notice the increase in speed that intel will give in gaming, but it's nice to have if you do anything cpu intensive.

[Viluin]

this has everything to do with AMD Vs Intel and you know it what cpu you using?

The CPU I'm using doesn't matter. This has nothing to do with AMD, it's about Intel screwing themselves and their customers over by cranking up the FSB every time. I don't see how you can argue that it was a good move.


aww like i said before buy AMD if you want to play todays new games
Buy Intel to play 18months from nows new games.

if AMD thought ahead they would have put DDR2 in there for upgrades

Why would they implement DDR2 support for processors that weren't even bottlenecked by DDR yet?

[Scottc1988]

Overclocking your proc won't help gaming at all (unless the rest of your rig is uber by comparison).
Bottleneck is almost always GPU, or possibly RAM or HDD. Most any modern processor is good enough for any game.
Supreme Commander.

[Atua]

The CPU I'm using doesn't matter. This has nothing to do with AMD, it's about Intel screwing themselves and their customers over by cranking up the FSB every time. I don't see how you can argue that it was a good move.



Why would they implement DDR2 support for processors that weren't even bottlenecked by DDR yet?

Cranking FSB sucks monkey balls because you have to upgrade motherboards prematurely to take advantage. Which was probably their plan.

[Hyster]

The CPU I'm using doesn't matter. This has nothing to do with AMD, it's about Intel screwing themselves and their customers over by cranking up the FSB every time. I don't see how you can argue that it was a good move.

Why would they implement DDR2 support for processors that weren't even bottlenecked by DDR yet?

"It's about Intel screwing themselves and their customers over by cranking up the FSB every time." Its called Overclocking the Customer can do it them selfs, unless theres a die srink or new core i wont count this. BE Smart and get a High End Mobo (680i,780i,790i)

and once again "Why would they implement DDR2 support for processors that weren't even bottlenecked by DDR yet?" Let me ask you this Why make a PCI-E 2.0 when you cant FULLY use the PCI-E x16 for upgrading in the future same goes with why intel did the DDR2 change so fast.

[Viluin]

and once again "Why would they implement DDR2 support for processors that weren't even bottlenecked by DDR yet?" Let me ask you this Why make a PCI-E 2.0 when you cant FULLY use the PCI-E x16 for upgrading in the future same goes with why intel did the DDR2 change so fast.

Because PCI-E 2.0 is backwards compatible. DDR2 isn't.

[Hyster]

Because PCI-E 2.0 is backwards compatible. DDR2 isn't.

true they were smart when they did that making a ram slot that takes DDR and DDR2 wouldnt be so easy so they took the higher road

[Viluin]

true they were smart when they did that making a ram slot that takes DDR and DDR2 wouldnt be so easy so they took the higher road

So your comparison was fallacious. If PCI-E 2.0 had not been backwards compatible, people would have to buy a new graphics card when upgrading to a PCI-E 2.0 motherboard. All that while PCI-E 2.0 only helps in high-end multi-GPU computers.

DDR2 wasn't backwards compatible, so people were forced to buy DDR2-533 or 667 memory for their DDR2 motherboards. Memory that, at best, was only just as good as cheap DDR-400. And guess what? Those motherboards never supported DDR2-800 or higher, so don't tell me it was "for future upgrades".

[Hyster]

so don't tell me it was "for future upgrades".

i will tell you blow me, you still know that in gaming and just about EVERYTHING AMD gets owned by Intel whats worse is the high end AMD (4 cores) get raped by low end intel chips with 2 cores.

[Viluin]

i will tell you blow me, you still know that in gaming and just about EVERYTHING AMD gets owned by Intel whats worse is the high end AMD (4 cores) get raped by low end intel chips with 2 cores.

Your usage of the word "rape" offends me.

[Hyster]

Your usage of the word "rape" offends me.

carebear

[Achromic]

Don't know if this will help.....

http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with-quad-core-processors/1

If it's too long go to the end for the verdict. Either way your gonna be gaming on something strong when you have a nice CPU compared to what most people have it pays off.

Heck I had a 750 Mghz PC for 7 years with a 500mghz in my room. I really regret never updating and enjoying computer games till recently. I have a AMD 64-Bit 3.2 gig 6400+ X2 and it owns both of those and if you got something in the 3.0-3.2 your already ahead of about 70% of gamers. I've ran into people playing games with 2.2 gigs or 1.8. I know money is tight now a days, I know $1000+ is a lot I kinda regret buying a pre-built custom but heck I've read up quite a bit on computers and if I do my research and I had the money I'd build my own and enjoy not only building it but using it.(Kinda regret it came with dual-8600s but with some research I found out 1 8800 owns SLI'd 8600s so I'll keep that in mind, so at least I learned a thing or two)

I gotta say this AMD vs Intel is so silly... sure some people will argue that AMD is a budget conscientious, while Intel is for gaming. But they are CPUs with power. Buying a good CPU like I said in the 3.0-3.2+ area your already ahead of the curve. I have a good friend who's father bought him sometime in 2002-2003 area a 3.1 gig comp with an 8400 or was it an 8500 card. Even though he should really upgrade and really wants to. A 3.1 for 2002-2003 is DAMN good even now 3.1 is good.

[Viluin]

Don't know if this will help.....

http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with-quad-core-processors/1

If it's too long go to the end for the verdict. Either way your gonna be gaming on something strong when you have a nice CPU compared to what most people have it pays off.

Heck I had a 750 Mghz PC for 7 years with a 500mghz in my room. I really regret never updating and enjoying computer games till recently. I have a AMD 64-Bit 3.2 gig 6400+ X2 and it owns both of those and if you got something in the 3.0-3.2 your already ahead of about 70% of gamers. I've ran into people playing games with 2.2 gigs or 1.8. I know money is tight now a days, I know $1000+ is a lot I kinda regret buying a pre-built custom but heck I've read up quite a bit on computers and if I do my research and I had the money I'd build my own and enjoy not only building it but using it.(Kinda regret it came with dual-8600s but with some research I found out 1 8800 owns SLI'd 8600s so I'll keep that in mind, so at least I learned a thing or two)

I gotta say this AMD vs Intel is so silly... sure some people will argue that AMD is a budget conscientious, while Intel is for gaming. But they are CPUs with power. Buying a good CPU like I said in the 3.0-3.2+ area your already ahead of the curve. I have a good friend who's father bought him sometime in 2002-2003 area a 3.1 gig comp with an 8400 or was it an 8500 card. Even though he should really upgrade and really wants to. A 3.1 for 2002-2003 is DAMN good even now 3.1 is good.

The clock speed of a processor is not indicative of its performance, unless you're comparing two processors from the same series. A 3.1 Ghz CPU in 2002-2003 is probably a Pentium 4, which means it was roughly on par with an Athlon XP 3000+. Oh, and the XP 3000+ sucks. It's not even 1/4th the CPU your current one is.

Your 3.2 Ghz CPU is roughly on par with a 2.6ghz Core 2 Duo CPU. AMD's K8 architecture is aging. The 45nm Phenoms look promising though.

[BlueElf]

I agree to some extent with Viluin, from my own testing of the 2.

Nothing wrong with AMDs. Both Intel and AMD have their strengths and weaknesses. Tho, looking at the big picture, all around currently Intel is faster. But they cost more as well.

As far as performance:
Generally speaking, a AMD needs to be approx from 600-700Mhz faster to match intels modern CPU perf.

I/e To compete with a 45 nm Intel @ 3.0 Ghz
AMDs will need anywhere from 3.6-3.7Ghz to match it ((Benchmarking that is))

As far as memory performance/bandwidth:
.. AMD will beat intel every time.

But as many have said, as far as gaming theres not a huge difference between the 2. I would say tho, a 2.8-3.0 Ghz CPU would be best.

GPU is of far greater importance, especially if running @ res. of 1440x900 or more.

Intel will always win clock for clock and in cpu intensive task. ((currently))

Personally, I think if AMD gets everything together , and get these Phenoms straighted out ... they will be the next CPU of choice.
I agree , they do look promising. They just need to iron out all the bugs.

[Hyster]

Clock Speed really cant be used to say Chip X is Faster then Clip Y (unless its the same core)

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2008-q1-2008/compare,370.html?prod

Look at the Chips Intel Pentium EE 965 (x2 Core 3.7Ghz Each)
and Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 (x2 Cores 2.1Ghz Each)

[Hyster]

http://xtreview.com/review192.htm

They managed to reach 3.6Ghz.

Btw, lawl @ Intel using old FSB technology. Srsly, move on to HyperTransport already like the rest of the world has. Maybe then people wouldn't have to upgrade to a new motherboard to support the latest CPU with its higher FSB, because everyone would have a 2.6Ghz HyperTransport bus that offers 41.6 GB/s of bandwidth.

if your talking about memory bandwidth then yes AMD is can hit higher scores then Intel But can and do are not the same thing.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2008-q1-2008/PCMark-2005-Memory,383.html

[Viluin]

if your talking about memory bandwidth then yes AMD is can hit higher scores then Intel But can and do are not the same thing.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2008-q1-2008/PCMark-2005-Memory,383.html

I wasn't talking about memory bandwidth, I was talking about FSB and HyperTransport.

[Mippoose]

1.86 ghrz 4 mb cache and duo core was wondering what I could clock this bad boy up to to make this game run smoothly

You could clock it up to 'fire in your room' if you're really daring.

[Hyster]

I agree to some extent with Viluin, from my own testing of the 2.

Nothing wrong with AMDs. Both Intel and AMD have their strengths and weaknesses. Tho, looking at the big picture, all around currently Intel is faster. But they cost more as well.

As far as performance:
Generally speaking, a AMD needs to be approx from 600-700Mhz faster to match intels modern CPU perf.

I/e To compete with a 45 nm Intel @ 3.0 Ghz
AMDs will need anywhere from 3.6-3.7Ghz to match it ((Benchmarking that is))

As far as memory performance/bandwidth:
.. AMD will beat intel every time.

But as many have said, as far as gaming theres not a huge difference between the 2. I would say tho, a 2.8-3.0 Ghz CPU would be best.

GPU is of far greater importance, especially if running @ res. of 1440x900 or more.

Intel will always win clock for clock and in cpu intensive task. ((currently))

Personally, I think if AMD gets everything together , and get these Phenoms straighted out ... they will be the next CPU of choice.
I agree , they do look promising. They just need to iron out all the bugs.

" AMDs will need anywhere from 3.6-3.7Ghz to match it " do you have any idea how how AMD chips can get? theres a reason people dont OC to 4ghz