[Klashe]

Very dissapointed. I just received the cpu today (12/13/02) and it came out a B0 stepping, not C1 as I was hoping for. I'm just wondering if I should send it back and try again (NewEgg) or keep this. Is there _really_ a significant difference? I don't know... I'll leave that up to you guys to decide. Thanks.

[flapperhead]

if new egg will take it back, and theres a chance to get a c1, yeah id do it. it appers the c1 steping has much potential. gonna go shopping for one tommorow at a comp show

[jdmcnudgent]

dont know why you are disappointed, the box c1's are only showing up in 2.4b flavors.

[Klashe]

If you go read some of the "Reader Reviews" given at NewEgg with the product (the one I want), some people have gotten C1 steppings. Oh well.

[FIZZ3]

I would test the chip's potential before being disappointed. There have been several reports of C1's falling flat at 100Mhz max OC. B0's are not immune to this, but there has been a decent number of impressive overclocks from this stepping too.

Try it out!

[micamica1217]

I can't agree more with FIZZ3.

I have seen C1 chips do bad as well as good at OCing.

I'm not saying that C1 chips should not be better, just that it is still luck of the draw.

if I had two retail boxs of the same cpu then I would open the C1.
yet I would never pay extra for it.

as you can see, I just got a 2.4b B0 less then two days ago from the egg. now why would I want to pay extra for a C1???

this chip is only running at 1.7v real....and when I stop getting lazy, I'll try to go higher.

we already have one 1.8a C1 retail that cant do better then 2.7ghz. and he paid more money for it.

I'll say it again, C1 doesn't mean a great OCer.

mica

[Klashe]

Ya. That sounds like the right thing to do. Question though: Do B0 steppings produce more heat than C1 steppings, granted you have the same hardware? That, and do they require less voltage? Thanks.

[FIZZ3]

Originally posted by Klashe
Ya. That sounds like the right thing to do. Question though: Do B0 steppings produce more heat than C1 steppings, granted you have the same hardware? That, and do they require less voltage? Thanks.

It has been claimed that C1 produce less heat, but frankly I don't believe that. It is still the same CPU, with only very minor changes. It's highly unlikely that this will affect the heat output in any measurable way.

The C1 stock voltage is actually higher than the B0 on- 1.525 vs 1.5v. How the chips respond to extra voltage is impossible to tell... the reports are just too variable (I have seen B0 chips benefiting exactly 0 from any extra voltage and the opposite too... same for C1).

[Klashe]

This is true. In short then, the C1 is just a better stepping for higher frequencies. For instance, take a C1 2.53@3.0 and a B0 2.53@3.0. The C1 is _meant_ for higher clock frequencies because it's the more reliabe stepping and works well under these frequencies. B0 has already reached it's peak, supposedly. However, the B0 stepping is highly underestimated if you ask me. Ah well.

[phantom punisher]

Originally posted by FIZZ3


It has been claimed that C1 produce less heat, but frankly I don't believe that. It is still the same CPU, with only very minor changes. It's highly unlikely that this will affect the heat output in any measurable way.

my bo stepping was about 2-5 deg c more at the speed of 2.85 @ 1.62v compared to my c1. its not scientific but that was my results running the different chips back to back on the same night. of course this may be indicutive of the c1 chips that will be high performers as mine can get to 3.45ish on 1.75v on air

[Overclocker456]

I wouldn't be so upset if got a B0-shrink 2.53GHz.. I'd open it up and test it out.. If it is a 2.53GHz B0-shrink you're in good shape, don't fall into the C1 buzz like I did, I bought a few C1's and they all overclocked like crap.. You have a real good chance of hitting 3GHz with it.. good luck..

[markodude]

agreed, some B0's are real good, especially 2.53's. My 2.53 ES is about as early as they get, yet with some extra voltage it clocks higher than my C1 2.50...my 2.50 does 2.85 Prime stable at default, yet doesn't benefit from any extra voltage on the boards I have used..

[Falkentyne]

I firmly believe that we won't see any consistent spectacular overclocks until Intel starts releasing 3.5+ ghz CPU's, and that stepping migrates down.

I consider this similar to the cB0 vs cC0 stepping for the 600e/700e chips. The first cA2 stepping of the 600e could only reach 756 mhz if you were unlucky, and 800-820 mhz if you were lucky. When the cB0's first appeared, there were tales of the 600e's hitting 900 out of the box, either with or without a minor voltage jump, and I bought one of the first cB0 600e's and mine hit 900 @ 1.7v. Some 700e's were reaching close to 1 ghz with very good cooling.

The cC0's didn't really improve very much, although cC0 700e's were reaching 1 ghz more reliably at default, while *many* 750 mhz cC0's were failing to reach past 900 without extreme cooling (!) which led crecedence to the theory that Intel was REMARKING 750's that passed the test, as 1 ghz's. cD0' 1000E's were a big boost, as some were reaching 1300 mhz with them; no idea about the slower chips, as the FSB would have to be VERY high...

The C1 stepping P4's should get better with time, and if not, perhaps the next stepping will.

And there is a BIG difference between getting 600E cB0 (many actaully felt these were remarked 800 EB's since virtually all of them reached 800 at default without a sweat), and 1.8 C1's that are overclocking to 3.5 ghz, which have pretty much been proved to be remarked 3.06's, versus ones that aren't.

Sorry if I sound confusing....

[micamica1217]

Sorry if I sound confusing....

you do not soud confusing at all....

and I agree with everything you said.

P.S. I miss my 600e

mica

[markodude]

Yeh agree with all that except the 1.8s being remarked 3.06s - I reckon the 1.8's we see doing amazing OC's are merely from the same batch as the new 3.06 chips, but were only tested at 1.8 as Dell put in a huge order for them asap........effectively some of them could have passed the 2.8 or 3.06 test but were never tested at that speed by Intel. Also there is the fact that HT is disabled although nobody seems to know how easy/hard that is for Intel to do, I would imagine it is already disabled by the testing stage in which case these could only have been 2.8's at best.