To get some background on cC0 chips and what their potential is, see here.
Enrico Carrisco pointed out this Intel document, which has a much different listing of CPUs.
Here’s the processors listed there:
S-specs for Coppermines with the new cC0 stepping:
100Mhz Processors
| FC-PGA Processors | |
| S Spec | Speed |
| SL49J | 700 Mhz |
| SL4M7 | 700 Mhz |
| SL4M9 | 750 Mhz |
| SL4MA | 800 Mhz |
| SL4MC | 850 Mhz |
| SECC2 Processors | |
| SL4KF | 800 Mhz |
| SL4KH | 850 Mhz |
E vs. EB
Since I keep getting asked about this, bear with me while I explain E/EB again.
Until very recently, there has been no reason to prefer an EB over an E chip if you are overclocking (there really still isn’t now.)
I do not care what a certain person at Tom’s Hardware writes, you will get more of an overclock and get better performance from an E chip
than an EB the vast majority of times. Write me
for a further explanation.
You have more room to overclock with an E chip than an EB chip.
For example, a 600E chips operates at 6X100. A 600EB chip runs at 4.5X133. If you ran at 150Mhz, 6X150 is more than 4.5X150. 6 times anything
will always be more than 4.5 times anything.
A higher FSB provides a slight advantage, given equal Mhz. However, even a 50Mhz improvement in overall Mhz usually makes up for a 15-20Mhz increase in FSB.
Of course, if the CPU can’t run at a certain speed, having a higher multiplier is useless. However, with the cC0 stepping, a 600Mhz processor should usually be able to hit 1Ghz at 167Mhz, which
would be the same as buying an 800EB and doing the same.
You should only consider buying an EB chip if you are going
to do one of the following::
to try to run it at 166Mhz (which I don’t recommend as a planned expectation, since you’ll be overclocking your PCI bus about 25%, which only
a minority of systems can tolerate), and you don’t have the guts to try it with a cC0 600E.
overclocking now. (Don’t recommend this either, better to leave your options open and choose between what may be a better AMD package at that point or
what will certainly be cheaper/better PIII combos at that point.
Here is the listing for cC0 EB chips.
133Mhz Processors
| FC-PGA Processors | |
| S Spec | Speed |
| SL4M8 | 733 Mhz |
| SL4MB | 800 Mhz |
| SL4MD | 866 Mhz |
| SL4ME | 933 Mhz |
| SECC2 Processors | |
| SL4KD | 733 Mhz |
| SL4FQ | 733 Mhz |
| SL4G7 | 800 Mhz |
| SL4KG | 800 Mhz |
| SL4KJ | 866 Mhz |
There’s quite a few holes in this list, both at the low and the high end. Lower speeds listed in the earlier documents aren’t listed here.
That could be reasonably expected; Intel may well have decided not keep producing those speeds for any real length of time.
However, the higher speeds aren’t there, either. No 1Ghz or 1.13Ghz models. We know the 1.13Ghz was recalled, but the 1Ghz?
Intel documents have never been a model of consistency, and they seem to be getting worse. There are plenty of references to 1Ghz and 1.13Ghz cC0 chips, just no actual chips in this document.
The Case of the Missing AJ3 Pin
The SECC2 processors have a new notation noting that the AJ3 pin is missing from them. Will check into this to see if it has any user impact.
When?
Good question.
If the cC0s are indeed coming out shortly, “shortly” should be in a couple weeks.
However, it is still not clear whether the problems that plagued the 1.13Ghz CPU bothers the rest of the family. If it does, then we’re looking at November/December.
I’m probably a worrywort, but I’d feel a little uneasy buying a cC0 until it’s made clear whether the problems with the 1.13Ghz chip were purely speed-related. After the 820 fiasco, one cannot be too careful.
Be the first to comment