- Joined
- Nov 21, 2005
- Location
- Atlanta, GA, USA
Next is the 100% OC 
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2140 Overclocking results
- Thread starter bail_w
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2005
- Location
- Atlanta, GA, USA
Ask and you shall receiveEvilsizer said:
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
- Location
- douglasville ga
right now it is between this cpu and the e4300.
Only 20$ for double the L2 cache. I would really love to see someone run one of these with an 8800 series card and post some numbers.
Only 20$ for double the L2 cache. I would really love to see someone run one of these with an 8800 series card and post some numbers.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2007
- Location
- Yorktown, VA
EvlUndrwareNome said:
I would spend $20 more and go with the E4300 if that is the actual difference in price. Just to give you an example and I don't want to take anything away from these CPUs because they look like amazing overclockers. But at 3.1GHz my E4300 runs 1M super pi at 17 seconds. That is 3 seconds faster at 100MHz lower clock speed. It is possible however that for gaming the difference is not as severe as cache is not as important.
My 2 cents
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2005
- Location
- Atlanta, GA, USA
I'll try to get some 3dmark runs to compare this cpu to both my e6600 and e4400 at the same clock speeds (I should have a 3200mhz run for each cpu posted in the benching section) in a few minutes. I'll edit this post with the different scores.EvlUndrwareNome said:
*Edit: 3DMark05 scores are as follows, benched on setup in my sig.
e4400 @ 3200mhz, 8800gts 320mb @ 660/960 - 17500 - verification
e2140 @ 3200mhz, 8800gts 320mb @ 660/960 - 16168 - verification
Also should be noted fsb is 320 for the e4400 and 400 for the e2140, both running 1:1 ram. With the e4400 up to 3500mhz I scored over 18000.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
- Location
- douglasville ga
sno.lcn said:
thanks for the info, this should be useful in comparing this cpu with this information.
thank you
-nome
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2002
- Location
- In slots 2 & 4!
GTengineer said:
Agreed 100%.
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Location
- San Diego, CA
Evilsizer said:
Interesting read none the less. I'ts nice to see that these "budget" chips are able to clock insanely high. I haven't seen too many chips that can clock an extra 125% above their stock clocks. I would have considered this chip very carefully if I had seen it before buying my e4300 and it had been around $70 shipped. Congrats on some awesome chips!
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2005
- Location
- Atlanta, GA, USA
I'll definitely shoot for it when I get back home in a couple of weeks (outta town again)Evilsizer said:
Great oc's
It would make a nice folding rig if it had more cache. These days smp folding really needs 4 MB or else it is no faster than my 930d's ... although it does consume less power and produce less heat.
It would make a nice folding rig if it had more cache. These days smp folding really needs 4 MB or else it is no faster than my 930d's ... although it does consume less power and produce less heat.
- Thread Starter
- #54
pscout said:Great oc's
It would make a nice folding rig if it had more cache. These days smp folding really needs 4 MB or else it is no faster than my 930d's ... although it does consume less power and produce less heat.
i rather want 4 cores than 4mb cache.
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Location
- UK = No Newegg for me :(
Heh this is a god send to the UK the e2160 is £30 ($60) cheaper than the e4400 which was a chip I was thinking of getting to hit 3.0ghz+ with decent temps. Does the 1mb less cache matter much in terms of gaming guys?
And its a Conroe, wowza
And its a Conroe, wowza
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2005
- Location
- Atlanta, GA, USA
If it'll get to 400fsb you're good, that's 3200mhz and it wasn't hard at all. It's just past 400 where the chip seems to have trouble. Highest I've seen one so far is just over 3400mhzSam__ said:
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2002
I have an E2140 on a Gigabyte DS3-965 with generic DDR2-667 (2x1GB = 2GB). Using the stock cooler and stock voltages, 2.67 GHz is quite stable, 2.80 will usually get you into the OS, though it did hard lock once at that speed. It will post in the 2.90 range but won't make it into Windows (2000, XP, Vista; I built this machine just to mess around with )
I don't believe I'm limited by the RAM, using a 250 MHz FSB I can get into Windows running at DDR2-833 (CPU-Z gives me a reading of 416.7 MHz for the memory, at reduced timings, slower than 5-5-5-15).
It does run into the upper 60s with an open case when running at 2.80 with Orthos, however, XP and Vista will kick down the multiplier when idle to 2.10 to bring temperatures down to the low 40s. I'm using CoreTemp 0.95 to measure. Not bad for a $100 Cdn. CPU.
)I don't believe I'm limited by the RAM, using a 250 MHz FSB I can get into Windows running at DDR2-833 (CPU-Z gives me a reading of 416.7 MHz for the memory, at reduced timings, slower than 5-5-5-15).
It does run into the upper 60s with an open case when running at 2.80 with Orthos, however, XP and Vista will kick down the multiplier when idle to 2.10 to bring temperatures down to the low 40s. I'm using CoreTemp 0.95 to measure. Not bad for a $100 Cdn. CPU.
