I am planning on moving to a p4 system sometime soon... Do yall think it would be better to go w/ a 1.8a or a 2.26b, possibly a little later (right after labor day?) Which should give me the better overclock (pref straight out of the box, stock cooler, as low voltage as possible)?
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
1.8a now or 2.26b later?
- Thread starter sailor420
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2002
- Location
- The Big Easy
The 2.26's are known to get into the 3Ghz range, plus the extra FSB is always worth it. I would wait get the 2.26 itll be worth it.
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2002
- Location
- The Big Easy
I believe its worth the extra money to start off at 133MHz. I dont see why Intel insists on releasing 100MHz processors, I mean just around the corner with AMD we are looking at 166MHz processors, I think that is a huge mistake by Intel.
cause they overclock alot better than the 133mhz chips.rlemieux said:
think about this. rasputin has his 1.8a at 2.9xx ghz most of the 2.26b's crap out around 3.0-3.1ghz
do the math. ras has a 1.1ghz overclock. someone with a 2.26b is only getting a 750mhz overclock.
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2002
- Location
- The Big Easy
Maxvla said:
Intel could give a sh** less about overclocking, the fact of the matter is a 1.8 at 3Ghz is at 166fsb, and a 2.26 at 3Ghz is at 176fsb. The performace is in bandwidth and the bandwidth is in the fsb.
But overclocking behind, a 100mhz processor is outdated. Not everyone overclocks and 95% do not even know what it is. You seem to forget we, overclockers, are the minority. Intel does not make processors for us, or do they care that Ras's chip is running at 2.9Ghz.
by the way, I passed 2nd grade, I am well capable of "doing the math"
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2001
- Location
- San Diego, CA
Well, first thing you should do is wait for the next price drop. Then like somebody already mentioned, go for whichever C1 stepping will give you the bigger FSB gain.
Similar threads
