A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Processors » Overclocking
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

My E7300.....



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 22nd 08, 02:35 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.overclocking
~misfit~[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 330
Default My E7300.....

I mentioned here a while back that I was going to upgrade my E4500
[65nm/2.40GHz/2MB] @ 3.32GHz/1.375V for an E7300 [45nm/2.66GHz/3MB] and that
I was hoping to get 4GHz out of it.

Sadly I was aiming a bit high. After much non-POSTing, not loading Windows,
BSODs and Prime fails I found that it topped out at 3.6GHz but that it
needed 1.400V set in BIOS [CPU-Z reading 1.380V] to be Prime-stable at that
speed. I ran it like that for a week or so but decided that I'd see what I
could get with a lower vcore. I can't afford to fry a CPU and these new
hafnium gate processors are supposed to be sensitive to vcore around 1.4V
and higher over a relatively short time.

Long story short, I'm running at 333 FSB now instead of default 266, multi
locked to 10 x and vcore on default. Temps are very low (they always have
been, not sure that core temp or core temp plugin for MBM5 is reading this
45nm CPU right). vcore in Windows seems to sit around the mid 1.2V range.

So, for my 'upgrade' I've got about the same speed as I had with the E4500
only at lower voltage, lower temps, an extra MB of L2 and a slightly more
efficient processor. (OCed E4500 gave me 3180/7128 Whetstone/Dhrystone
whereas the E7300 at about the same speed is giving me 3469/7179.) I'm
thinking that it's probably a bit cheaper to run too.

Not the big boost I was hoping for really. I've advertised it on the NZ
version of ebay at a $20 loss and, if it sells, I'll think about an E8400.
Maybe. If I sold the E7300 and squeezed my budget I could possibly get a
Q6600 but as my PC is running 24/7, that would cost me quite a bit more in
electricity costs. Also I think it would push the limits of my Tt
MiniTyphoon. Q9300s, while a lot more efficient, are still quite expensive
here.

Maybe I'll just stick with the E7300 @ 3.33GHz and default vcore. It's not
*that* bad a result I guess, 120% OC with no vcore boost. However, as a
dyed-in-the-wool OCer I feel a little unfulfilled. I think maybe the E4500
spoiled me. I do like a 150%+ OC.

I've taken note of those new E1200 / E1400 Celerons, 1.6GHz / 2GHz, 65nm
dual core CPUs for under NZ$100. Shame the L2 is so low. 512 KB. Then again,
I've heard of 200% OCs with the E1200 and it's said that the result is due
in part to the smaller L2 making them more OCable.

Cheers,
--
Shaun.

[Other stuff]
Asus P5K-E/WiFi-AP, BIOS ver. 1013
AcBel R8 700W PSU
2 x 1GB Transcend DDR2-800
Thermaltake MiniTyphoon.
Leadtek 7800GT.
2 x Seagate 500GB 7200.11 SATA II HDDs
2 x Seagate 320GB 7200.10 SATA II HDDs
Pioneer DVR-212 SATA DVD-RW
Windows XP Pro SP3.


  #2  
Old August 22nd 08, 04:45 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.overclocking
Ed Medlin[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 136
Default My E7300.....


"~misfit~" wrote in message
...
I mentioned here a while back that I was going to upgrade my E4500
[65nm/2.40GHz/2MB] @ 3.32GHz/1.375V for an E7300 [45nm/2.66GHz/3MB] and
that I was hoping to get 4GHz out of it.

Sadly I was aiming a bit high. After much non-POSTing, not loading
Windows, BSODs and Prime fails I found that it topped out at 3.6GHz but
that it needed 1.400V set in BIOS [CPU-Z reading 1.380V] to be
Prime-stable at that speed. I ran it like that for a week or so but
decided that I'd see what I could get with a lower vcore. I can't afford
to fry a CPU and these new hafnium gate processors are supposed to be
sensitive to vcore around 1.4V and higher over a relatively short time.

Long story short, I'm running at 333 FSB now instead of default 266, multi
locked to 10 x and vcore on default. Temps are very low (they always have
been, not sure that core temp or core temp plugin for MBM5 is reading this
45nm CPU right). vcore in Windows seems to sit around the mid 1.2V range.

So, for my 'upgrade' I've got about the same speed as I had with the E4500
only at lower voltage, lower temps, an extra MB of L2 and a slightly more
efficient processor. (OCed E4500 gave me 3180/7128 Whetstone/Dhrystone
whereas the E7300 at about the same speed is giving me 3469/7179.) I'm
thinking that it's probably a bit cheaper to run too.

Not the big boost I was hoping for really. I've advertised it on the NZ
version of ebay at a $20 loss and, if it sells, I'll think about an E8400.
Maybe. If I sold the E7300 and squeezed my budget I could possibly get a
Q6600 but as my PC is running 24/7, that would cost me quite a bit more in
electricity costs. Also I think it would push the limits of my Tt
MiniTyphoon. Q9300s, while a lot more efficient, are still quite expensive
here.

Maybe I'll just stick with the E7300 @ 3.33GHz and default vcore. It's not
*that* bad a result I guess, 120% OC with no vcore boost. However, as a
dyed-in-the-wool OCer I feel a little unfulfilled. I think maybe the E4500
spoiled me. I do like a 150%+ OC.

I've taken note of those new E1200 / E1400 Celerons, 1.6GHz / 2GHz, 65nm
dual core CPUs for under NZ$100. Shame the L2 is so low. 512 KB. Then
again, I've heard of 200% OCs with the E1200 and it's said that the result
is due in part to the smaller L2 making them more OCable.

Cheers,
--
Shaun.


The Q6600, at least with my experience, is not going to get you any more as
far as raw Mhz is concerned......and not a lot more in performance other
than benchmarks like 3DMark. I am going to keep the Q6600 until next Spring
and probably look at a Nehalem. That will be about 2yrs which is my normal
upgrade cycle over the last 20yrs or so....:-). I am not sure if I will even
update video since my two 8800GTX cards are still pretty good performers in
SLI even compared to the newer Nvidia and ATI offerings. Power savings is
not a big deal and I doubt you would even notice it at all from an E4500 to
a Q6600. A very few pennies/mo would be the max. I added an EM64t @ 3.6Ghz
system as a 24/7 file server and can't see any difference in my monthly bill
that I can attribute to it or more AC running in the summer.........:-).

Ed


  #3  
Old August 23rd 08, 01:35 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.overclocking
~misfit~[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 330
Default My E7300.....

Somewhere on teh intarweb "Ed Medlin" typed:
"~misfit~" wrote in message
...
I mentioned here a while back that I was going to upgrade my E4500
[65nm/2.40GHz/2MB] @ 3.32GHz/1.375V for an E7300 [45nm/2.66GHz/3MB]
and that I was hoping to get 4GHz out of it.

Sadly I was aiming a bit high. After much non-POSTing, not loading
Windows, BSODs and Prime fails I found that it topped out at 3.6GHz
but that it needed 1.400V set in BIOS [CPU-Z reading 1.380V] to be
Prime-stable at that speed. I ran it like that for a week or so but
decided that I'd see what I could get with a lower vcore. I can't
afford to fry a CPU and these new hafnium gate processors are
supposed to be sensitive to vcore around 1.4V and higher over a
relatively short time. Long story short, I'm running at 333 FSB now
instead of default 266,
multi locked to 10 x and vcore on default. Temps are very low (they
always have been, not sure that core temp or core temp plugin for
MBM5 is reading this 45nm CPU right). vcore in Windows seems to sit
around the mid 1.2V range. So, for my 'upgrade' I've got about the same
speed as I had with the
E4500 only at lower voltage, lower temps, an extra MB of L2 and a
slightly more efficient processor. (OCed E4500 gave me 3180/7128
Whetstone/Dhrystone whereas the E7300 at about the same speed is
giving me 3469/7179.) I'm thinking that it's probably a bit cheaper
to run too. Not the big boost I was hoping for really. I've advertised it
on the
NZ version of ebay at a $20 loss and, if it sells, I'll think about
an E8400. Maybe. If I sold the E7300 and squeezed my budget I could
possibly get a Q6600 but as my PC is running 24/7, that would cost
me quite a bit more in electricity costs. Also I think it would push
the limits of my Tt MiniTyphoon. Q9300s, while a lot more efficient,
are still quite expensive here.

Maybe I'll just stick with the E7300 @ 3.33GHz and default vcore.
It's not *that* bad a result I guess, 120% OC with no vcore boost.
However, as a dyed-in-the-wool OCer I feel a little unfulfilled. I
think maybe the E4500 spoiled me. I do like a 150%+ OC.

I've taken note of those new E1200 / E1400 Celerons, 1.6GHz / 2GHz,
65nm dual core CPUs for under NZ$100. Shame the L2 is so low. 512
KB. Then again, I've heard of 200% OCs with the E1200 and it's said
that the result is due in part to the smaller L2 making them more
OCable.


The Q6600, at least with my experience, is not going to get you any
more as far as raw Mhz is concerned......and not a lot more in
performance other than benchmarks like 3DMark. I am going to keep the
Q6600 until next Spring and probably look at a Nehalem. That will be
about 2yrs which is my normal upgrade cycle over the last 20yrs or
so....:-). I am not sure if I will even update video since my two
8800GTX cards are still pretty good performers in SLI even compared
to the newer Nvidia and ATI offerings. Power savings is not a big
deal and I doubt you would even notice it at all from an E4500 to a
Q6600. A very few pennies/mo would be the max. I added an EM64t @
3.6Ghz system as a 24/7 file server and can't see any difference in
my monthly bill that I can attribute to it or more AC running in the
summer.........:-).


Hi Ed.

Yeah, those 8800GTX's should last you a while. I think that you're right
about the Q6600 not getting me more raw MHz, I had a play with one in a
system I built for a friend. Similar to mine only he went for the
P5K-Premium (one of those guys that has to go one better) and the Tt
Typhoon. It didn't clock as high as the E4500 and got quite hot. Heat =
power consumption and, here in NZ we don't have nuclear power and have a
moritorium on new fossil-fuel power stations so electricity is getting
expensive.

Add to that I'm on a (low) fixed income, an invalid's benefit
(OCing/hardware and teh intarweb are pretty much my only hobbies/use of
discretionary spending and that's often stretching it) and the fact that my
PC with the E4500 was costing me ~$10/week to run and you'll see why power
consumption is important to me. It dictates what I can eat each week. ;-)
Factor in the fact that I'm running SETI on a 50% cycle and two extra cores
would cost me a bit. (I suppose I could drop it to a 30% cycle in that case.
I ran a wattage meter on my machine/E4500 and found that running SETI @ 50%
only cost me an extra 15W above idle. Running at 100% cost me idle + 45W)

I used to have a two year turn over of computers too but since my injury and
subsequent income drop it seems to be panning out at around 5 years. That's
how long I kept my last machine, an XP2500+ Barton OCed to 2.2GHz. I'm not
that demanding of machines, the Barton and ti4200 would probably still do
everything I want, just with the odd second or two's pause here and there
(and it's not like I'm in a hurry really g).

So basically my aim pre-Nehalem was to build a machine that would be good
for 5 years with maximum bang-for-buck and some satisfaction to feed my OC
addiction. The reason I'm considering possibly changing CPUs at the moment
is I can probably still get ~85% of the cost of the E7300 second-hand if I
decide to sell. (I have a 100% positive rating on 'Trademe', our version of
ebay. http://www.trademe.co.nz/Members/Fee...x?member=33990 )

I haven't had any nibbles on my listing for the E7300 yet. I've pretty much
decided that I'll run two week-long auctions and let that decide if I'm
sticking with it or not. I put the E4500 into an Asus P5PE-VM,
http://www.asus.com/products.aspx?l1...&modelmenu =1 an
odd-ball mATX mobo that I picked up for under NZ$100, runs 65nm dual cores
and gives me a capable back-up machine. It allows me to re-use my 2 x 1GB
DDR and my AGP card. Alas, it has no OCing ability and the BSEL mod that I
did had it booting at 266 FSB / 2.93GHz for a while Prime-stable but stopped
working and dropped back to 200 / 2.2GHz. I guess the de-fogger paint that I
used to make the connection either wore through (humidity? thermal cycling?)
or cracked.

Cheers,
--
Shaun.

DISCLAIMER: If you find a posting or message from me
offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... ;-)


  #4  
Old August 23rd 08, 10:34 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.overclocking
~misfit~[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 330
Default My E7300.....

Somewhere on teh intarweb "Bill" typed:
In article ,
says...



[snip]

Hi Bill,

I know that this is not what you want to hear, but since you got
similar results from 2 different processors maybe it's your mother
board or memory that's holding you back.


I don't think that it is. The E4500 was running at 414MHz FSB (x 8) for the
OC I settled on (synchronous with RAM...) whereas the E7300 wouldn't do 10 x
400 but would do 8 x 450 or 9 x 400.

I've tried various combos of FSB and multi with both CPUs and the max
frequency for each was around the same regardless of how it was reached
(3.32 GHz for the E4500 and 3.62 GHz for the E7300). The mobo is stable to
at least 500MHz FSB and the RAM will loop Memtest all day at 450MHz / DDR900
with default vdimm.

The only reason that I got "similar results" is because I throttled the
E7300 back to a speed that it would do with default vcore as I can't afford
to 'lose' the E7300 and there's talk of them not liking long-term vcore near
or above 1.4V.

The X48 chipsets are
supposed to be a little better at OCing than the P35.


Only marginally, (if that) from what I've read.

Then again, seeing the price of X48 motherboards, I'd probably stick
with the E7300 and save my money for when Nehalem comes out.


I'll be still using 775 when Nehalem's been around for a few years
unfortunately. I can only swing one major purchase every five years or so
lately, hence the care with which I chose my mobo.

Cheers,
--
Shaun.

DISCLAIMER: If you find a posting or message from me
offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... ;-)


  #5  
Old August 23rd 08, 04:23 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.overclocking
Fishface
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 281
Default My E7300.....

~misfit~ wrote:

Long story short, I'm running at 333 FSB now instead of default 266, multi
locked to 10 x and vcore on default. Temps are very low (they always have
been, not sure that core temp or core temp plugin for MBM5 is reading this 45nm CPU right). vcore in Windows seems to
sit around the mid 1.2V range.


I'm going to go ahead and ask you to try a 1333 BSEL mod now on that puppy!
http://www.ocforums.com/attachment.p...d=12040946 97
Easy, no paint required.


  #6  
Old August 24th 08, 03:02 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.overclocking
~misfit~[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 330
Default My E7300.....

Somewhere on teh intarweb "Fishface" typed:
~misfit~ wrote:

Long story short, I'm running at 333 FSB now instead of default 266,
multi locked to 10 x and vcore on default. Temps are very low (they
always
have been, not sure that core temp or core temp plugin for MBM5 is
reading this 45nm CPU right). vcore in Windows seems to sit around
the mid 1.2V range.


I'm going to go ahead and ask you to try a 1333 BSEL mod now on that
puppy!
http://www.ocforums.com/attachment.p...d=12040946 97
Easy, no paint required.


Hehee! That does look simple! For a 1066 BSEL I had to cover the next land
up from that one and then run conductive material up from that one onto the
covered land above it.

Do you really want me to try it? I don't need to on my mobo as it has such
excellent OCing options in BIOS. However, if you'd like me to try it I will.
It's not like I haven't got about 4 tubes of different TIMs.

It's a shame that the mobo my E4500 is now in doesn't support 1333 FSB (or
vcore adjustment) or I'd try that on the E4500.

Cheers,
--
Shaun.

DISCLAIMER: If you find a posting or message from me
offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... ;-)


  #7  
Old August 24th 08, 04:29 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.overclocking
Fishface
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 281
Default My E7300.....

~misfit~ wrote:

Do you really want me to try it? I don't need to on my mobo as it has such
excellent OCing options in BIOS. However, if you'd like me to try it I will.
It's not like I haven't got about 4 tubes of different TIMs.


They are saying it can cause it to boot with a different strap or something
and enable it to go higher on some boards. But since you were able to run
8 x 450, though, I don't know. Probably not? What the heck is Intel doing
to the low FSB parts to limit them?!

An interesting test would be to try each core separately. Maybe only one
is not up to snuff?


  #8  
Old August 24th 08, 06:06 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.overclocking
~misfit~[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 330
Default My E7300.....

Somewhere on teh intarweb "Fishface" typed:
~misfit~ wrote:

Do you really want me to try it? I don't need to on my mobo as it
has such excellent OCing options in BIOS. However, if you'd like me
to try it I will. It's not like I haven't got about 4 tubes of
different TIMs.


They are saying it can cause it to boot with a different strap or
something and enable it to go higher on some boards.


Yes, it would. However my BIOS allows me to set the strap manually and
choose between 200, 266, 333 and 400. It's not dependant on the CPU to set
it.

But since you
were able to run 8 x 450, though, I don't know. Probably not?


No, there is truth in the 'strap' limiting max FSB. I think it's to do with
latency to NB. ( Semi-informed speculation, take with a grain of salt.)

What the heck is Intel doing to the low FSB parts to limit them?!


See above. The E4500 (200 FSB stock) that I ran on a 450 FSB was done with
the strap set to 400.

An interesting test would be to try each core separately. Maybe only
one is not up to snuff?


Nah, I'm pretty sure it's a chipset and latency issue, nothing to do with
the CPU as such. The higher the strap the higher the CPU - NB latency is set
making it less likely to encounter errors with high FSB speeds. It is in
Intel thing but to do with chipset rather than CPU.

Cheers,
--
Shaun.

DISCLAIMER: If you find a posting or message from me
offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... ;-)


  #9  
Old August 24th 08, 07:16 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.overclocking
Phil Weldon[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 131
Default My E7300.....

'~misfit~' wrote, in part:
Nah, I'm pretty sure it's a chipset and latency issue, nothing to do with
the CPU as such. The higher the strap the higher the CPU - NB latency is
set making it less likely to encounter errors with high FSB speeds. It is
in Intel thing but to do with chipset rather than CPU.

_____

It must be a chipset feature; with my nVidia 680i chipset motherboard I can
set the FrontSide Bus frequency to any integer (within reason) and the
memory clock to any integer (within reason); some memory clock settings
will not 'take', and the integer set will adjust by a few MHz. 'Course I
have only an E4300 that tops out at about 3.3 GHz no matter what the
multiplier.

I see the run up to 'Nehalem' is beginning to affect prices; newegg.com is
offering the Q9550 for less than $325 US.

Phil Weldon

"~misfit~" wrote in message
...
Somewhere on teh intarweb "Fishface" typed:
~misfit~ wrote:

Do you really want me to try it? I don't need to on my mobo as it
has such excellent OCing options in BIOS. However, if you'd like me
to try it I will. It's not like I haven't got about 4 tubes of
different TIMs.


They are saying it can cause it to boot with a different strap or
something and enable it to go higher on some boards.


Yes, it would. However my BIOS allows me to set the strap manually and
choose between 200, 266, 333 and 400. It's not dependant on the CPU to set
it.

But since you
were able to run 8 x 450, though, I don't know. Probably not?


No, there is truth in the 'strap' limiting max FSB. I think it's to do
with latency to NB. ( Semi-informed speculation, take with a grain of
salt.)

What the heck is Intel doing to the low FSB parts to limit them?!


See above. The E4500 (200 FSB stock) that I ran on a 450 FSB was done with
the strap set to 400.

An interesting test would be to try each core separately. Maybe only
one is not up to snuff?


Nah, I'm pretty sure it's a chipset and latency issue, nothing to do with
the CPU as such. The higher the strap the higher the CPU - NB latency is
set making it less likely to encounter errors with high FSB speeds. It is
in Intel thing but to do with chipset rather than CPU.

Cheers,
--
Shaun.

DISCLAIMER: If you find a posting or message from me
offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... ;-)


  #10  
Old August 24th 08, 09:55 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.overclocking
~misfit~[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 330
Default My E7300.....

Somewhere on teh intarweb "Phil Weldon" typed:
'~misfit~' wrote, in part:
Nah, I'm pretty sure it's a chipset and latency issue, nothing to do
with the CPU as such. The higher the strap the higher the CPU - NB
latency is set making it less likely to encounter errors with high
FSB speeds. It is in Intel thing but to do with chipset rather than
CPU.

_____

It must be a chipset feature; with my nVidia 680i chipset motherboard
I can set the FrontSide Bus frequency to any integer (within reason)
and the memory clock to any integer (within reason); some memory
clock settings will not 'take', and the integer set will adjust by a
few MHz. 'Course I have only an E4300 that tops out at about 3.3 GHz
no matter what the multiplier.


Yep, now that you mention it I've heard it mentioned in relation to Intel
chipsets, mainly the P35 (which is no surprise as it's what I have so that's
what I've mostly been reading about).

I see the run up to 'Nehalem' is beginning to affect prices;
newegg.com is offering the Q9550 for less than $325 US.


checks watch Mother of God! Is it *that* time already??

I can feel myself falling off the (cutting) edge! It was fun while it
lasted. I'll probably disappear from the hardware and overclocking groups
again soon, as I did last when Socket A became old hat and nobody wanted to
know what I knew anymore...

I'll just be lurking in the shadows, reading about the fantastic new stuff
and waiting in case someone wants help with obsolete gear. g

Cheers,
--
Shaun.

DISCLAIMER: If you find a posting or message from me
offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... ;-)


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.