overclocking a E6750Post Date: 2008-01-16 |
Post Reply 
|
| Author | |
brian 
Senior Member 
Joined: 03 Aug 2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 505 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: overclocking a E6750Posted: 16 Jan 2008 at 6:43pm |
|
on the mb 680LT and with a E6750 what would the average increase be? as far as mhz. compared to a stock E6850 would it be a good choice to overclock to save money?
|
|
 |
|
|
skyR
Newbie 
Digital Storm Apprentice 
Joined: 08 Oct 2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2220 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 16 Jan 2008 at 6:53pm |
|
3.2ghz.
One of the reasons people overclock is to save money... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bill the Cat
DS Veteran 
Forum Bitch! 
Joined: 27 Aug 2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1150 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 16 Jan 2008 at 8:31pm |
I don't think skyR quite got the last part of your statement, but no matter.
"Do ya feel lucky, Punk? Well, do ya?" Old Dirty Hairy movies aside, it's pretty safe to predict a E6750 will run somewhere between 2.66 GHz and 3.6 GHz. That is, if you've been "bad" it will only run at the rated speed, but if you've been real "good", it may run as fast as my overclocked E6850, or even faster. The E6750s and E6850s all come from the same waffers. The best ones are used to make E6850s, but if the Fabs are working well that month, the parts binned as E6750s will still be able to run as fast or faster than a stock E6850.
So, now you've got guesstimates for the range and the average. It's still just a crap shoot.
skyR, any chance the Southbridge would overheat on a 680i LT if the FSB was running at 1600 MHz?
By the way, the amazing thing about skyR's CPU, IMHO, is that it does 3.2 GHz at such a low Vcore.
|
|
|
3.6 GHz E6850, 4 GB RAM, GTS 250, TJ9, Win 7 64-bit
4.4 GHz i7 3930K, 16 GB RAM, GTX 670, 550D, Win 7 64-bit |
|
|
|
|
brian
Senior Member
Joined: 03 Aug 2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 505 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 16 Jan 2008 at 9:43pm |
|
thanks for the info guys. 3.2 sounds good and save me money to get other options on my computer.
|
|
|
|
|
brian
Senior Member
Joined: 03 Aug 2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 505 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 16 Jan 2008 at 10:49pm |
|
now will i see a big diff between a 2.6 and say a 3.2 oc. as far as performance? to me its not that different. so why overclock?
|
|
|
|
|
Tyler Lowe
Newbie
Joined: 14 May 2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 0 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 16 Jan 2008 at 11:16pm |
|
In my experience, it's noticeable. Not really while playing games, but in the time to get into desktop, or load a web page, I have noticed a tremendous difference between 2.7GHz and 3.1GHz (I upgraded my cooling after I received my system and decided to see how high I could get a stable OC without exceeding an idle temp of 34C). How much of a difference is there? From the benchmarks I have run, it's right around a 30% increase. This with no upgrades to hardware.
Essentially, I paid less than $400 including the upgraded fans and CPU to get performance similar to a $1000 CPU. My voltage levels are within Intel's recommended levels, and my idle and load temps are lower than a stock cooler can manage on the more expensive CPU. To me, that's about as strong an argument to overclock as I can make. It's like paying for an Escort and receiving a Mustang. |
|
|
|
|
brian
Senior Member
Joined: 03 Aug 2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 505 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 16 Jan 2008 at 11:59pm |
|
lol thanks...that sold me to going oc.
|
|
|
|
|
Bill the Cat
DS Veteran
Forum Bitch!
Joined: 27 Aug 2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1150 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 17 Jan 2008 at 9:09am |
If your CPU manages to hit 3.2 GHz, that's almost exactly a 20% increase. Any CPU limited benchmark that you run should come out 20% higher.
Will you notice the difference in real life? Sometimes. For many day to day operations, these processors are such gross overkill that you will not notice any difference between instantaneous and 20% more instantaneous. Much of the time these CPUs are only running at 2/3s of their full speed because that's enough. Other times, the time it takes your computer to perform a task is determined by other components in the system, like hard drives or the GPU.
All that said, go for it!
|
|
|
3.6 GHz E6850, 4 GB RAM, GTS 250, TJ9, Win 7 64-bit
4.4 GHz i7 3930K, 16 GB RAM, GTX 670, 550D, Win 7 64-bit |
|
|
|
|
EdH63
DS Veteran
Joined: 01 Sep 2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1826 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 17 Jan 2008 at 12:26pm |
|
My original CPU FSB is 266 MHz, it runs at 350 MHz now... 32%. My CPU Clock reads a 31% overclock.
I realize it's not the same board, I just thought I'd throw this out there. I guess I had a little cock envy. I mean, "clock" envy! WHEW!  Edited by EdH63 - 17 Jan 2008 at 12:43pm |
|
|
|
|
brian
Senior Member
Joined: 03 Aug 2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 505 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 17 Jan 2008 at 5:12pm |
|
lol
|
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You can vote in polls in this forum |
About Digital Storm
Contact Information
Facility Tour
Financing
Buy Now, Pay Later
Downloads
GSA Schedule
Terms & Conditions
Privacy Policy
Request Help
Call: 1-866-817-8676
(Hours 9AM-5PM PST)
Topic Options