Viewing Thread:
"3.0Ghz Versus 2.6Ghz CPU"

Ok Ive got a little problem;

My 2.8 P4 will only hit 230 fsb ~ 3.2GHz , but I've got RAM capable of hitting ~277 fsb.

I know it means spending more money, but it keeps me happy and therefore worth it...

I want to replace it with either a 15 multiplier (3.0 GHz) or a 13 multiplier (2.6 GHz).

The 2.6 has advantage of being renowned for bad boy overclocks in the region of 1GHz and the bandwidth that would come with such an overclock would be awesome.

The 3.0 has the advantage of being able to achieve close to 4GHz but with limited bandwidth, the prices of both chips are fairly low.

Any thoughts on the better OC path to go down??

Ok Ive got a little problem;

My 2.8 P4 will only hit 230 fsb ~ 3.2GHz , but I've got RAM capable of hitting ~277 fsb.

I know it means spending more money, but it keeps me happy and therefore worth it...

I want to replace it with either a 15 multiplier (3.0 GHz) or a 13 multiplier (2.6 GHz).

The 2.6 has advantage of being renowned for bad boy overclocks in the region of 1GHz and the bandwidth that would come with such an overclock would be awesome.

The 3.0 has the advantage of being able to achieve close to 4GHz but with limited bandwidth, the prices of both chips are fairly low.

Any thoughts on the better OC path to go down??

What was your Vcore?

I've gone all the way up to 1.725 Vcore it boots and blue screens at upto 239 fsb and only runs stable at a decent voltage at 230 fsb.

i got the same Vcore.
fsb is 233 i think.

If you spend £10K on a liquid nitrogen vat, you should be able to get it up to 300fsb. Nothing like paying through the nose for free performance, eh?

Or [URL]http://www.chillblast.com/customer/product.php?productid=286[/URL]

I think you'll notice the better bandwidth rather than the extra 400 MHz.

Although, if you could get the chip for it, a 3 GHz one would do 267 MHz FSB * 15, giving 4 GHz. And that would be about perfect.

What is your cooling?

Icaruss wrote:
> Or
> [URL]http://www.chillblast.com/customer/product.php?productid=286[/URL]

I'd rather have a Mach II GT.

Notorious Biggles wrote:
> I think you'll notice the better bandwidth rather than the extra 400
> MHz.
>
> Although, if you could get the chip for it, a 3 GHz one would do 267
> MHz FSB * 15, giving 4 GHz. And that would be about perfect.
>
> What is your cooling?

hmm... thats juicy!!

Got a Coolermaster Jet 4 waiting in its box for the next processor, it was all planned out you see...

I have a Jet 7. I like the fan, low CFM but fairly high pressure and no dead spots. Although it has an aluminium heat sink, not a copper one.

In the end I imagine you'll pick up a Thermalright something and higher powered fan.