1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

reluctant overclocker considering C2D E6600

Discussion in 'Overclocking' started by »Q«, Sep 5, 2007.

  1. »Q«

    »Q« Guest

    I was looking to put together a C2D box, with no thought of
    overclocking, when I noticed the E6600 was slightly more expensive than
    the E6750. I figured that must be because the E6600 is easily OCable,
    and some googling and reading here confirm it. So I find myself in the
    same boat as a few years ago when I built my current box; the P4 1.6A
    was too good an OCer to pass up. I've been running it at 2133 MHz for
    five years, though it would go a bit higher.

    I don't OC because I enjoy it, but if it's easy I'd like to take
    advantage of the gain in performance without spending more. I'm not
    willing to do anything other than stock cooling. I will use some
    thermal goop rather than whatever cpu/hsf interface Intel ships. So, if
    I go with the E6600, is it a very good bet I can run it at 3.0 GHz with
    the stock hsf in an Antec Sonata III case?

    If it's a nearly sure thing (I know there are no sure things with OCing
    plans), I'll take that chance. From googling and reading some here, it
    seems a safe bet, but I'm curious to see if anyone's been /unable/ to
    get a E6600 to 3.0 without extra measures.

    In case anything in my proposed setup looks problematic to you, here it
    is:

    Antec Sonata III case, comes with 500 watt PSU
    ASUS P5K mainboard (P35 and ICH9 chipsets)
    Corsair TWIN2X2048-6400C4
    EVGA GeForce 8600GTS 256MB 128-bit GDDR3
    Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD3200AAKS 320GB 7200 RPM
    16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb
    ASUS DRW-1814BLT SATA optical drive
    »Q«, Sep 5, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. »Q«

    Phil Weldon Guest

    '»Q«' wrote, in part:
    |I was looking to put together a C2D box, with no thought of
    | overclocking, when I noticed the E6600 was slightly more expensive than
    | the E6750. I figured that must be because the E6600 is easily OCable,
    | and some googling and reading here confirm it. So I find myself in the
    | same boat as a few years ago when I built my current box; the P4 1.6A
    | was too good an OCer to pass up. I've been running it at 2133 MHz for
    | five years, though it would go a bit higher.
    _____

    For such a mild overclock as a 2.66 GHz E6750 @ 3.0 GHz, FSB = 450 MHz (only
    12%) you should choose the E6750 over the more expensive E6600. For the
    short version, you can skip to ***** B^)

    The E4300 and other E4xxx CPUs have the advantage of requiring a lower FSB
    for overclocking (2.7 GHz for the 1.8 GHz E4300 requires only a 300 MHz FSB
    (9X 300 MHz = 2.7 GHz), 333 MHz for 3.0 GHz, and 400 MHz for 3.6 GHz. The
    2.4 GHz E6600 requires the same FSB speeds for the same CPU speeds. A 2.66
    GHz E6750 requires a 375 MHz FSB for 3.0 GHz and a 450 MHz for 3.6 GHz
    (because the higher stock FSB speed of 1333 MHz and the lower CPU
    multiplier; X8 vs. X9). As you can see, the lower stock FSBs for the E4x00
    series and the E6x00 series CPUs is an advantage if you are going for high
    overclocks (~ 50% or more) because of limitations of the motherboard FSB
    speeds (the nVidia 680i chipset motherboards have higher FSB capabilities
    than Intel chipsets prior to the P35 (perhaps higher than the P35), but for
    mild overclocks the E6750 gives more bang for the buck (IF you have a
    motherboard capable of FSB speeds over 1333 MHz.

    I use the EVGA 680i motherboard with an E4300 (1.8 GHz stock) running at 2.7
    GHz with core voltage set to 0.075 volts below stock (with air cooling.)
    Though I now use an after market air cooler (ThermalTake i7, $35 US), the
    50% overclock to 2.7 GHz was pretty much a gimmie with the undervolted CPU.
    With the Intel boxed, retail heatsink fan and thermal pad the CPU core
    temperatures at 100% load (Intel TAT) were in the high 60s C. The
    ThermalTake reduced the core temperatures by 6 or 7 C. Though I can reach a
    higher overclock than 2.7 GHz, the ease and convenience (completely stable
    [over a pretty wide ambient temperature range this summer]) of staying at
    the 50% 2.7 GHz overclock can't be beat by the small performance increase of
    3.15 GHz. Any higher than 3.15 GHz with my particular CPU will require
    water cooling. I use an Enlight EN-8950 case with two 80 mm fans in the
    rear panel blowing out, one 120 mm fan in the front blowing in across the
    hard drives, power supply blowing out, 120 mm fan in the side blowing in
    toward the CPU, memory, chipset, and primary graphics slot area (rarely
    used.) As long as you use enough fans and get good internal air flow (two
    to four case fans) then most any case will do, so, given this qualification,
    you can more or less pick a case by convenience, finish, and price ( I
    picked the VERY deep Enlight EN-8950 for its nine externally accessible 5.25
    inch bays, space for two 120 mm front fans, generous internal workspace,
    slide-in drive rails, and price ~ $100 w/o PS.)

    *****
    If you look back over posts in this newsgroup since March you will see some
    pretty detailed discussions of E6600 overclocking posts by 'Ed Medlin' and
    E4300 by 'Phil Weldon'. I don't believe there have been many posts on E6750
    experience.

    Depending on how you will use the system, you might consider the cheaper
    E4300 (~ $120 US ) rather than the E6600 ( ~ $227 ) or E6750 ( ~ $200 ) and
    apply the money saved toward an 8800 GTS 320 MByte ( ~ $270 ) rather than an
    8600 GTS 256 MB ( ~$170 US ) With my E4300/EVGA 680i/Patriot DDR2-1066/EVGA
    8800 GTS 320 MByte system, the 3DMark06 scores are

    E4300 @ 2.7 GHz, 8800 GTS 320 MByte @ stock, memory @ stock = ~ 8500

    and

    E4300 @ 3.15 GHz, 8800 GTS 320 MByte @ 640 MHz/950 MHz, memory overclocked =
    ~ 10,400.

    The E4300 (and other E4xxx CPUs) has the advantage of requiring a lower FSB
    for overclocking (2.7 GHz for the 1.8 GHz E4300 requires only a 300 MHz FSB
    (9X 300 MHz = 2.7 GHz). The 2.4 GHz E6600 also requires just a 300 MHz FSB
    for 2.7 GHz and 333 MHz for 3.0 GHz while a 2.66 GHz E6750 requires a 375
    MHz FSB for 3.0 GHz. But for such a mild overclock as a 2.66 GHz E6750 @
    3.0 GHz (only 12%) you should choose the E6750 over the more expensive
    E6600. [Prices current at http://www.zipzoomfly.com , an etailer from which
    I've bought most of my computer parts for the past few years.]

    Were I to consider building a system for a mild CPU overclock I would go, at
    this instant, with the E6750. I don't intend to replace my E4300 until a
    die shrink (or with a Q6600 if I just can't restrain myself that long.) I
    expect my current components to be capable of supporting the next die
    shrink, FSB speed increase quad core CPU. For now I've got to learn to use
    my new Vista Home Ultimate T7300 CPU notebook and think about water cooling
    for my E4300 - anything to put off real work B^)

    Phil Weldon

    "»Q«" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    |I was looking to put together a C2D box, with no thought of
    | overclocking, when I noticed the E6600 was slightly more expensive than
    | the E6750. I figured that must be because the E6600 is easily OCable,
    | and some googling and reading here confirm it. So I find myself in the
    | same boat as a few years ago when I built my current box; the P4 1.6A
    | was too good an OCer to pass up. I've been running it at 2133 MHz for
    | five years, though it would go a bit higher.
    |
    | I don't OC because I enjoy it, but if it's easy I'd like to take
    | advantage of the gain in performance without spending more. I'm not
    | willing to do anything other than stock cooling. I will use some
    | thermal goop rather than whatever cpu/hsf interface Intel ships. So, if
    | I go with the E6600, is it a very good bet I can run it at 3.0 GHz with
    | the stock hsf in an Antec Sonata III case?
    |
    | If it's a nearly sure thing (I know there are no sure things with OCing
    | plans), I'll take that chance. From googling and reading some here, it
    | seems a safe bet, but I'm curious to see if anyone's been /unable/ to
    | get a E6600 to 3.0 without extra measures.
    |
    | In case anything in my proposed setup looks problematic to you, here it
    | is:
    |
    | Antec Sonata III case, comes with 500 watt PSU
    | ASUS P5K mainboard (P35 and ICH9 chipsets)
    | Corsair TWIN2X2048-6400C4
    | EVGA GeForce 8600GTS 256MB 128-bit GDDR3
    | Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD3200AAKS 320GB 7200 RPM
    | 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb
    | ASUS DRW-1814BLT SATA optical drive
    |
    |
    Phil Weldon, Sep 5, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. »Q«

    »Q« Guest

    On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 15:10:34 -0300
    "Phil Weldon" <> wrote:

    > For such a mild overclock as a 2.66 GHz E6750 @ 3.0 GHz, FSB = 450
    > MHz (only 12%) you should choose the E6750 over the more expensive
    > E6600.


    This makes sense, except for the FSB=450. To overclock the E6750
    (stock 2.66 GHz, 333 FSB), the FSB should be set to 375, right?

    > For the short version, you can skip to ***** B^)


    I've snipped a lot, but thanks for all of it.

    > As you can see, the lower stock FSBs for the E4x00 series and the
    > E6x00 series CPUs is an advantage if you are going for high
    > overclocks (~ 50% or more) because of limitations of the motherboard
    > FSB speeds (the nVidia 680i chipset motherboards have higher FSB
    > capabilities than Intel chipsets prior to the P35 (perhaps higher
    > than the P35), but for mild overclocks the E6750 gives more bang for
    > the buck (IF you have a motherboard capable of FSB speeds over 1333
    > MHz.


    What about a motherboard with a 650i northbridge? Any idea whether it
    would be more or less likely than the P35 to tolerate taking the FSB to
    375 or 400? I hadn't considered overclocking the E6750 because of FSB
    issues, but I guess I'll probably end up trying it and see how it goes.

    FWIW, I tend to stick with low-end motherboards because I don't need a
    lot of features. I'm now looking at the ASUS P5N-E (580i) as well as
    the P5K (P35) I mentioned before.

    > *****
    > If you look back over posts in this newsgroup since March you will
    > see some pretty detailed discussions of E6600 overclocking posts by
    > 'Ed Medlin' and E4300 by 'Phil Weldon'. I don't believe there have
    > been many posts on E6750 experience.


    Yeah, I've been looking through them. Thanks to both of you.

    I'm now pretty well convinced to go with the E6750. I may just leave
    it at stock, but if I do overclock it a bit, I'll post my experiences.
    »Q«, Sep 6, 2007
    #3
  4. »Q«

    Ed M. Guest

    "Phil Weldon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > '»Q«' wrote, in part:
    > |I was looking to put together a C2D box, with no thought of
    > | overclocking, when I noticed the E6600 was slightly more expensive than
    > | the E6750. I figured that must be because the E6600 is easily OCable,
    > | and some googling and reading here confirm it. So I find myself in the
    > | same boat as a few years ago when I built my current box; the P4 1.6A
    > | was too good an OCer to pass up. I've been running it at 2133 MHz for
    > | five years, though it would go a bit higher.
    > _____
    >
    > For such a mild overclock as a 2.66 GHz E6750 @ 3.0 GHz, FSB = 450 MHz
    > (only
    > 12%) you should choose the E6750 over the more expensive E6600. For the
    > short version, you can skip to ***** B^)
    >
    > The E4300 and other E4xxx CPUs have the advantage of requiring a lower FSB
    > for overclocking (2.7 GHz for the 1.8 GHz E4300 requires only a 300 MHz
    > FSB
    > (9X 300 MHz = 2.7 GHz), 333 MHz for 3.0 GHz, and 400 MHz for 3.6 GHz. The
    > 2.4 GHz E6600 requires the same FSB speeds for the same CPU speeds. A 2.66
    > GHz E6750 requires a 375 MHz FSB for 3.0 GHz and a 450 MHz for 3.6 GHz
    > (because the higher stock FSB speed of 1333 MHz and the lower CPU
    > multiplier; X8 vs. X9). As you can see, the lower stock FSBs for the
    > E4x00
    > series and the E6x00 series CPUs is an advantage if you are going for high
    > overclocks (~ 50% or more) because of limitations of the motherboard FSB
    > speeds (the nVidia 680i chipset motherboards have higher FSB capabilities
    > than Intel chipsets prior to the P35 (perhaps higher than the P35), but
    > for
    > mild overclocks the E6750 gives more bang for the buck (IF you have a
    > motherboard capable of FSB speeds over 1333 MHz.
    >
    > I use the EVGA 680i motherboard with an E4300 (1.8 GHz stock) running at
    > 2.7
    > GHz with core voltage set to 0.075 volts below stock (with air cooling.)
    > Though I now use an after market air cooler (ThermalTake i7, $35 US), the
    > 50% overclock to 2.7 GHz was pretty much a gimmie with the undervolted
    > CPU.
    > With the Intel boxed, retail heatsink fan and thermal pad the CPU core
    > temperatures at 100% load (Intel TAT) were in the high 60s C. The
    > ThermalTake reduced the core temperatures by 6 or 7 C. Though I can reach
    > a
    > higher overclock than 2.7 GHz, the ease and convenience (completely stable
    > [over a pretty wide ambient temperature range this summer]) of staying at
    > the 50% 2.7 GHz overclock can't be beat by the small performance increase
    > of
    > 3.15 GHz. Any higher than 3.15 GHz with my particular CPU will require
    > water cooling. I use an Enlight EN-8950 case with two 80 mm fans in the
    > rear panel blowing out, one 120 mm fan in the front blowing in across the
    > hard drives, power supply blowing out, 120 mm fan in the side blowing in
    > toward the CPU, memory, chipset, and primary graphics slot area (rarely
    > used.) As long as you use enough fans and get good internal air flow (two
    > to four case fans) then most any case will do, so, given this
    > qualification,
    > you can more or less pick a case by convenience, finish, and price ( I
    > picked the VERY deep Enlight EN-8950 for its nine externally accessible
    > 5.25
    > inch bays, space for two 120 mm front fans, generous internal workspace,
    > slide-in drive rails, and price ~ $100 w/o PS.)
    >
    > *****
    > If you look back over posts in this newsgroup since March you will see
    > some
    > pretty detailed discussions of E6600 overclocking posts by 'Ed Medlin' and
    > E4300 by 'Phil Weldon'. I don't believe there have been many posts on
    > E6750
    > experience.
    >
    > Depending on how you will use the system, you might consider the cheaper
    > E4300 (~ $120 US ) rather than the E6600 ( ~ $227 ) or E6750 ( ~ $200 )
    > and
    > apply the money saved toward an 8800 GTS 320 MByte ( ~ $270 ) rather than
    > an
    > 8600 GTS 256 MB ( ~$170 US ) With my E4300/EVGA 680i/Patriot
    > DDR2-1066/EVGA
    > 8800 GTS 320 MByte system, the 3DMark06 scores are
    >
    > E4300 @ 2.7 GHz, 8800 GTS 320 MByte @ stock, memory @ stock = ~ 8500
    >
    > and
    >
    > E4300 @ 3.15 GHz, 8800 GTS 320 MByte @ 640 MHz/950 MHz, memory overclocked
    > =
    > ~ 10,400.
    >
    > The E4300 (and other E4xxx CPUs) has the advantage of requiring a lower
    > FSB
    > for overclocking (2.7 GHz for the 1.8 GHz E4300 requires only a 300 MHz
    > FSB
    > (9X 300 MHz = 2.7 GHz). The 2.4 GHz E6600 also requires just a 300 MHz FSB
    > for 2.7 GHz and 333 MHz for 3.0 GHz while a 2.66 GHz E6750 requires a 375
    > MHz FSB for 3.0 GHz. But for such a mild overclock as a 2.66 GHz E6750 @
    > 3.0 GHz (only 12%) you should choose the E6750 over the more expensive
    > E6600. [Prices current at http://www.zipzoomfly.com , an etailer from
    > which
    > I've bought most of my computer parts for the past few years.]
    >
    > Were I to consider building a system for a mild CPU overclock I would go,
    > at
    > this instant, with the E6750. I don't intend to replace my E4300 until a
    > die shrink (or with a Q6600 if I just can't restrain myself that long.) I
    > expect my current components to be capable of supporting the next die
    > shrink, FSB speed increase quad core CPU. For now I've got to learn to
    > use
    > my new Vista Home Ultimate T7300 CPU notebook and think about water
    > cooling
    > for my E4300 - anything to put off real work B^)
    >
    > Phil Weldon
    >

    I am still in the dual boot mode with Vista Ultimate.......:). As far
    as processors go, I get killed by the quad cores but am very near the top
    for the C2Ds in 3DMark '06. I finally did get to the 3.7Ghz mark with my
    E6600 with a lot of voltage (without liquid it would max at 3-3.2Ghz or so I
    would think). It is stable there in both XP Pro and Vista Ultimate and temps
    are ok at mid 30s idle and high 50s-low 60sC max. I wouldn't go with another
    dual core if upgrading. I would go with the processors that are wiping the
    floor with me.......:). Like you, I will not upgrade until a die shrink. If
    I knew I could get lucky and get as good a Q6600 as my E6600 for OC'ing I
    MIGHT do it, but in all honesty this processor does all I want it to do even
    at lower speeds. It is just the old overclocking spirit in me that wants to
    get as much as possible out of these things. With these new Intels it brings
    back memories of the P3 days as far as OC'ing.


    Ed Medlin
    Ed M., Sep 6, 2007
    #4
  5. »Q«

    Phil Weldon Guest

    '»Q«' wrote, in part:
    | This makes sense, except for the FSB=450. To overclock the E6750
    | (stock 2.66 GHz, 333 FSB), the FSB should be set to 375, right?
    _____

    You are correct, the 2.66 GHz E6750 has a stock multiplier of X8, so a FSB
    speed of 375 MHz would give 3.0 GHz. A 450 FSB speed with a multiplier of
    X8 would give 3.6 GHz.

    The nVidia 650i chipset should overclock as well as the 680i chipset. The
    650i motherboards have only one PCI-E X16 slot, so you lose SLI. Also the
    less expensive 650i motherboards MAY cut a few corners, some that don't
    matter so much (only one Gigabit LAN port rather than two), some that might
    limit extreme overclocking. The LT version of the 680i motherboards have
    two PCI-E X16 slots; the fully packed 680i motherboards add one PCI-E X8
    slot that can take X16 cards to the two PCI-E X16 slots of the LT 680i
    motherboards.

    Check the slots, PATA, and SATA connectors to make sure you have enough room
    for legacy drives and PCI boards. Though my EVGA 680i motherboard has two
    PCI-E X16, one PCI-E X8, two PCI-E X1, and two PCI slots, the first 8800
    class (double thick) graphics card blocks one PCI-E X1 slot and the second
    8800 class (double thick) graphics card blocks a PCI slot. My EVGA 680i
    motherboard has only one IDE dual channel controller but has six SATA
    connectors.

    Phil Weldon

    "»Q«" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    | On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 15:10:34 -0300
    | "Phil Weldon" <> wrote:
    |
    | > For such a mild overclock as a 2.66 GHz E6750 @ 3.0 GHz, FSB = 450
    | > MHz (only 12%) you should choose the E6750 over the more expensive
    | > E6600.
    |
    | This makes sense, except for the FSB=450. To overclock the E6750
    | (stock 2.66 GHz, 333 FSB), the FSB should be set to 375, right?
    |
    | > For the short version, you can skip to ***** B^)
    |
    | I've snipped a lot, but thanks for all of it.
    |
    | > As you can see, the lower stock FSBs for the E4x00 series and the
    | > E6x00 series CPUs is an advantage if you are going for high
    | > overclocks (~ 50% or more) because of limitations of the motherboard
    | > FSB speeds (the nVidia 680i chipset motherboards have higher FSB
    | > capabilities than Intel chipsets prior to the P35 (perhaps higher
    | > than the P35), but for mild overclocks the E6750 gives more bang for
    | > the buck (IF you have a motherboard capable of FSB speeds over 1333
    | > MHz.
    |
    | What about a motherboard with a 650i northbridge? Any idea whether it
    | would be more or less likely than the P35 to tolerate taking the FSB to
    | 375 or 400? I hadn't considered overclocking the E6750 because of FSB
    | issues, but I guess I'll probably end up trying it and see how it goes.
    |
    | FWIW, I tend to stick with low-end motherboards because I don't need a
    | lot of features. I'm now looking at the ASUS P5N-E (580i) as well as
    | the P5K (P35) I mentioned before.
    |
    | > *****
    | > If you look back over posts in this newsgroup since March you will
    | > see some pretty detailed discussions of E6600 overclocking posts by
    | > 'Ed Medlin' and E4300 by 'Phil Weldon'. I don't believe there have
    | > been many posts on E6750 experience.
    |
    | Yeah, I've been looking through them. Thanks to both of you.
    |
    | I'm now pretty well convinced to go with the E6750. I may just leave
    | it at stock, but if I do overclock it a bit, I'll post my experiences.
    Phil Weldon, Sep 6, 2007
    #5
  6. »Q«

    »Q« Guest

    On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 15:55:50 -0300
    "Phil Weldon" <> wrote:

    > The nVidia 650i chipset should overclock as well as the 680i
    > chipset. The 650i motherboards have only one PCI-E X16 slot, so you
    > lose SLI. Also the less expensive 650i motherboards MAY cut a few
    > corners, some that don't matter so much (only one Gigabit LAN port
    > rather than two), some that might limit extreme overclocking. The LT
    > version of the 680i motherboards have two PCI-E X16 slots; the fully
    > packed 680i motherboards add one PCI-E X8 slot that can take X16
    > cards to the two PCI-E X16 slots of the LT 680i motherboards.


    I've spent some time since my last post reading motherboard reviews.
    The ASUS P5N-E 650i I was looking at will do SLI, but with the
    PCI-Es both at 8x. All the writing I've seen agrees that the practical
    difference between 8x and 16x is negligible.

    Reviews also indicate that overclocking the FSB to 400 would be no
    problem, and I really won't go higher than that. At least one reviewer
    had it running over 500 with some extra heatsinks and fans.

    > Check the slots, PATA, and SATA connectors to make sure you have
    > enough room for legacy drives and PCI boards.


    I'm good there -- no legacy stuff at all. The only thing I can imagine
    adding to it someday would be a wireless card, and even with two
    vidcards blocking some slots, there would be one PCI and one PCI-E
    still available.
    »Q«, Sep 7, 2007
    #6
  7. »Q«

    Jack R Guest

    "Phil Weldon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > '»Q«' wrote, in part:
    > | This makes sense, except for the FSB=450. To overclock the E6750
    > | (stock 2.66 GHz, 333 FSB), the FSB should be set to 375, right?
    > _____
    >
    > You are correct, the 2.66 GHz E6750 has a stock multiplier of X8, so a FSB
    > speed of 375 MHz would give 3.0 GHz. A 450 FSB speed with a multiplier of
    > X8 would give 3.6 GHz.
    >
    > The nVidia 650i chipset should overclock as well as the 680i chipset. The
    > 650i motherboards have only one PCI-E X16 slot, so you lose SLI. Also the
    > less expensive 650i motherboards MAY cut a few corners, some that don't
    > matter so much (only one Gigabit LAN port rather than two), some that
    > might
    > limit extreme overclocking. The LT version of the 680i motherboards have
    > two PCI-E X16 slots; the fully packed 680i motherboards add one PCI-E X8
    > slot that can take X16 cards to the two PCI-E X16 slots of the LT 680i
    > motherboards.
    >
    > Check the slots, PATA, and SATA connectors to make sure you have enough
    > room
    > for legacy drives and PCI boards. Though my EVGA 680i motherboard has two
    > PCI-E X16, one PCI-E X8, two PCI-E X1, and two PCI slots, the first 8800
    > class (double thick) graphics card blocks one PCI-E X1 slot and the second
    > 8800 class (double thick) graphics card blocks a PCI slot. My EVGA 680i
    > motherboard has only one IDE dual channel controller but has six SATA
    > connectors.
    >
    > Phil Weldon
    >
    > "»Q«" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > | On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 15:10:34 -0300
    > | "Phil Weldon" <> wrote:
    > |
    > | > For such a mild overclock as a 2.66 GHz E6750 @ 3.0 GHz, FSB = 450
    > | > MHz (only 12%) you should choose the E6750 over the more expensive
    > | > E6600.
    > |
    > | This makes sense, except for the FSB=450. To overclock the E6750
    > | (stock 2.66 GHz, 333 FSB), the FSB should be set to 375, right?
    > |
    > | > For the short version, you can skip to ***** B^)
    > |
    > | I've snipped a lot, but thanks for all of it.
    > |
    > | > As you can see, the lower stock FSBs for the E4x00 series and the
    > | > E6x00 series CPUs is an advantage if you are going for high
    > | > overclocks (~ 50% or more) because of limitations of the motherboard
    > | > FSB speeds (the nVidia 680i chipset motherboards have higher FSB
    > | > capabilities than Intel chipsets prior to the P35 (perhaps higher
    > | > than the P35), but for mild overclocks the E6750 gives more bang for
    > | > the buck (IF you have a motherboard capable of FSB speeds over 1333
    > | > MHz.
    > |
    > | What about a motherboard with a 650i northbridge? Any idea whether it
    > | would be more or less likely than the P35 to tolerate taking the FSB to
    > | 375 or 400? I hadn't considered overclocking the E6750 because of FSB
    > | issues, but I guess I'll probably end up trying it and see how it goes.
    > |
    > | FWIW, I tend to stick with low-end motherboards because I don't need a
    > | lot of features. I'm now looking at the ASUS P5N-E (580i) as well as
    > | the P5K (P35) I mentioned before.
    > |
    > | > *****
    > | > If you look back over posts in this newsgroup since March you will
    > | > see some pretty detailed discussions of E6600 overclocking posts by
    > | > 'Ed Medlin' and E4300 by 'Phil Weldon'. I don't believe there have
    > | > been many posts on E6750 experience.
    > |
    > | Yeah, I've been looking through them. Thanks to both of you.
    > |
    > | I'm now pretty well convinced to go with the E6750. I may just leave
    > | it at stock, but if I do overclock it a bit, I'll post my experiences.
    >
    >


    The ASUS P5N-E SLI is a 650i chipset motherboard with 2 PCI-E X16 slots, SLI
    capable.
    My E6600 runs perfectly well at 3.3GHz, with air cooling (35 - 40 C
    quiescent; 60 - 65 C under stress, ambient 22 - 25C).
    Jack R
    Jack R, Sep 7, 2007
    #7
  8. »Q«

    Thomas Guest

    "Jack R" wrote:
    >> The nVidia 650i chipset should overclock as well as the 680i chipset.
    >> The
    >> 650i motherboards have only one PCI-E X16 slot, so you lose SLI. Also
    >> the
    >> less expensive 650i motherboards MAY cut a few corners, some that don't
    >> matter so much (only one Gigabit LAN port rather than two), some that
    >> might
    >> limit extreme overclocking. The LT version of the 680i motherboards have
    >> two PCI-E X16 slots; the fully packed 680i motherboards add one PCI-E X8
    >> slot that can take X16 cards to the two PCI-E X16 slots of the LT 680i
    >> motherboards.

    >
    > The ASUS P5N-E SLI is a 650i chipset motherboard with 2 PCI-E X16 slots,
    > SLI capable.
    > My E6600 runs perfectly well at 3.3GHz, with air cooling (35 - 40 C
    > quiescent; 60 - 65 C under stress, ambient 22 - 25C).


    Got the same board, nice budget board with SLI capability. Native SATA so no
    problem doing a clean install of Windows in my SATA only system.

    Just installed an extra sink on the southbridge, since it had no sink
    whatsoever. Got me a Zalman sink for about 3 euros, almost negligable
    price... I also got an active cooling (with heatpipes) for the northbridge,
    but I didnt install it yet. Lazy me...

    All in all, I'm a happy camper. The only problem is that I needed to
    downgrade my BIOS to 0401 to have all the OC options and system stability.

    --
    Greetz, Thomas van der Horst
    Thomas, Sep 7, 2007
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. greenbean

    intel C2D x6800 extreme

    greenbean, Nov 12, 2006, in forum: Overclocking
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    349
    Larry
    Nov 14, 2006
  2. Neil

    MB choice for C2D

    Neil, Dec 28, 2006, in forum: Overclocking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    229
  3. Burning_Ranger
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    905
  4. John W Gintell
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    166
    John W Gintell
    Jan 22, 2005
  5. Rhino
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    733
    Nobody > (Revisited)
    Nov 11, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page