Printable View
LOL i have a Q746A534 sitting here on the floor. I always though each cpu had a different number. I am corrently running a E8400 and to get it to 4650 i have to put 1.68 vcore to it. i be tryin the E3110 very soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by sofarfrome
My E3110 is at 3.78 Ghz at 1.3V. I have no clue how hot it's running though, every temperature program I use is stuck at 42*C.
I also can't push it past 419 FSB because my Commando put up a wall with bios 1605 that allows me to use 45NM chips at 420FSB. It's not the Xeon either, because it did it with my E6300 when I had it at 475FSB before the 1605 bios.
I have seen some Q746A534 Xeons and E8400s that will clock better than my "good one". But I did get to 4.8GHz 1M-SPi benchable with 1.6vcore and that would be great if I wanted to bench under phase/dice/ln2.Quote:
Originally Posted by GFDuke
i think the first runs of the e8400's were the best clocking chips on low volts. latley most e8400's seem to be turds. If i was ordering now i would go e3110
My first one does 500x8 1:1 on 1.3125v and 475x8.5 for 4037mhz with mem at 1170 on 1.3125 and 4158 on 1.3625 at 462x9 and mem at 1155 all on air and prime stable all mobo volts stock values.
I just ordered another one :)
Sofarfrome, your results are the exact same opposite to what I've been seeing. So your statements are not any true-er than mine. And by looking at the reponses in this thread so far would indicate that the Xeon's in general are better than their C2D counterparts.
I think the issue is that nobody has really done a large enough test on Core2's and their Xeon equivalents to give a conclusive result either way. You can't really judge the performance based on a comparison between a half-dozen CPUs, especially considering the difference that the batch can make. There's just too much variation from one CPU to another for someone to say which one is superior.
Eller
Word!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by karl_eller
These people testing a few chips and giving out facts that do NOT support an empirical data evaluation do NOT extend to the propositions that the Xeon or the Workstation CPU has any real difference in terms of overclocking. Some workstation 45nm's have lower VIDs than some Xeon 45nm's. Some workstation 45nm's will overclock better than some Xeon 45nm's. AND VICE VERSA.
Those who attempt to state anything else have not the statistical data to prove what they say.
It always amazes me how many people take their own personal projects and few pieces of hardware AND EXTEND blanket proposals/statements.
I have another name for these people but I will leave that up to imaginations. :down:
Well, so far I have yet to see an E3110 run 4.3GHz P95 9+ hours stable on 1.344vcore. Most of the Xeons so far are from Q746A534 batch (yes there are others) that people have been posting results from and perhaps that batch is OK but so far there are also several batches of E8400 that seem to OC very well, not just the Q743A that I had. And I had a dud from that same batch of Q746A534. If you look around the web you will find that others have had the same duds on occasion. My point is that to date there is no data that says the Xeon is a better overclocker than its E8400 couterpart.Quote:
Originally Posted by J@mmer
So lets just agree to disagree
I have tested 3 CPUs (one of which is the best OCing chip I have seen to date) and been searching for and reading tons of test data relative to the 45nm C2Ds so I think I can safely and confidently make some assumptions as to how the server chips compare to the desktop chips as far as overclocking on good water and air. It is a different story when it comes to dice/phase/ln2 and I can't speak for that personally. But there is enough information out there from people that have put these chips under exotic cooling to still draw a conclusion that the Xeons do not OC any better than their desktop counterparts.Quote:
Originally Posted by karl_eller
Is the :down: directed at me? If so then you certainly didn't get my original point which was there is no supporting data to say that the Xeon OCs better than its desktop counterpart. The info I included from my experiences was just that, info. I wasn't drawing any real conclusions from it but I believe some assumptions can be made that can be proven with more data.Quote:
Originally Posted by DerekT
I've got the E3110 and it definately clocks better than my E8400, which was not stable at 450 x 9 (with 1.3625v in the bios), but was fine at 445MHz. My new E3100 is stable at 460 x 9 with the same voltage. It is also stable at 500 x 8 with 1.28v, which my E8400 was not. Basically the E3110 allows about 150MHz extra at the same voltage.
Although the e3110 runs about 5C hotter than the E8400 at idle and about 10C hotter at load...perhaps attributable to heatsink installation? At least the core diodes aren't stuck like they were on my two E8400's. I did cutback on the MX-2 paste as it was gooping out the edges on previous installs.
I have to agree with sofarfrome on this one. I've been watching both cpu's since they've come out and I have yet to see any difference in clocking and the only way to determine anything would be some sort of data base. So and so having one cpu doing poorly and then getting the other that did better proves nothing. If you had a poor clocking e8400 that wont do 4G then by average you're going to get one if you try the 3110. Most of either of these cpu will oc to that level. With a Q743 e8400, I've primed 4.3 at 1.36v and 4.4 at 1.39v, on air. Does that prove anything, no. You have to collect multiple cpus from each type and then take the average. I'll bet it's very close.
The way i'd look at it is this....if the Xeon is a good bit cheaper $30-50 you should go for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dower
Richard, thank you !
best answer i've read on this 2nd page :)
It's not always about you. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by sofarfrome