Operating Frequency Vs. L2 Cache

[Googer]

Originally posted by: wizboy11

Originally posted by: Googer
I would just recomend you get the 4200+, it operates at 2.2GHz and is equal in single threaded performace to a 3500+. The 3800 @ 2.0 GHz is equal to a 3000+, for $75 differance it should not be a real deal breaker.

SO, ever heard of overclocking? I'm sure the stock cooler can do 200mhz. Why pay $75 when you can get it for free.

I am not a big fan of system instability. (Overheating, innaccurate calculations, pushing other components out of spec, etc). For me $75 is chump change and I do not mind it. I just do not advise people overclock; but if you are going to do it, I will not be the one to stop you as long as you admit responsibility for your mistakes. In other words do not RMA it becasuse you broke it (from too much Overclocking).

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Originally posted by: Googer

I am not a big fan of system instability. (Overheating, innaccurate calculations, pushing other components out of spec, etc). For me $75 is chump change and I do not mind it. I just do not advise people overclock; but if you are going to do it, I will not be the one to stop you as long as you admit responsibility for your mistakes. In other words do not RMA it becasuse you broke it (from too much Overclocking).

What makes you think overclocking is inherently unstable? With a 50% overclock, my system is rock solid. It's a little hot, I admit, but if I wanted I could back it down to about 40% and run at the same temperature as at stock. But that's not even an issue, because as long as the heat doesn't cause system instability, I don't care if it's 200 degrees in there.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: hurtstotalktoyou

Originally posted by: Googer

I am not a big fan of system instability. (Overheating, innaccurate calculations, pushing other components out of spec, etc). For me $75 is chump change and I do not mind it. I just do not advise people overclock; but if you are going to do it, I will not be the one to stop you as long as you admit responsibility for your mistakes. In other words do not RMA it becasuse you broke it (from too much Overclocking).

What makes you think overclocking is inherently unstable? With a 50% overclock, my system is rock solid. It's a little hot, I admit, but if I wanted I could back it down to about 40% and run at the same temperature as at stock. But that's not even an issue, because as long as the heat doesn't cause system instability, I don't care if it's 200 degrees in there.

If the differance between a slower CPU and a faster one is $75 then what is the point to overclocking if you need to spend $100(and more) on a Larger Heatsink, Faster RAM, and an expensive motherboard? That kind of defeats any purpose of overclocking; it would have been cheaper to have bought the faster chip to begin with.

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Originally posted by: Googer

If the differance between a slower CPU and a faster one is $75 then what is the point to overclocking if you need to spend $100(and more) on a Larger Heatsink, Faster RAM, and an expensive motherboard? That kind of defeats any purpose of overclocking; it would have been cheaper to have bought the faster chip to begin with.

Some like to invest in all that, but really you don't need any more than retail cooling, the cheapest RAM you can find, and a $64 motherboard. Look at my setup, for example. I don't have any fancy cooler or RAM. I could have saved $20 on the motherboard, sure, but its features gets me an overclock worth $100. And that's on a budget rig!

 

[Googer]

No matter what side of the coin you are on, HaroBikes333 has said he prefers not to overclock. There always have been and always will be people on both sides of this fence. A great many of us like our computers smooth and stable. Just like on overclocking side of things there are always compromises to make when building a system for stability.

 

[Vallybally]

Good points Googer. Another side effect of OCing no one ever seems to acknowledge is that even if it's stable, statistically you are putting more strain and shortening the lifespan of your CPU. Some people would like to keep a PC for 5 years (hand it down to family who don't play games), rather than 2 years.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: Vallybally
Good points Googer. Another side effect of OCing no one ever seems to acknowledge is that even if it's stable, statistically you are putting more strain and shortening the lifespan of your CPU. Some people would like to keep a PC for 5 years (hand it down to family who don't play games), rather than 2 years.

It does not matter how fast your overclocked computer is while playing Quake 3, if it crashes during gameplay or shuts down automaticly due to overheating then it is worthless to even bother with it.