E4500 @ 3.3GHz on air.

"~misfit~" <misfitnz.TakeThisOut@yahoot.com.au> wrote in message
news:4739754d$1@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
> Ok, I think I'll leave it at that: (It goes higher stably [3.4 tested] but
> summer isn't here yet and it's about 8° hotter)
>
> http://test.internet-webmaster.de/upload/1194947570.jpg
>
> CPU Intel E4500
> Mobo Asus P5K-E WiFi-AS
> CPU cooler: Thermaltake Mini Typhoon.
>
> It's been a while since my last 50% overclock. A Coppermine Celeron 600MHz
> @ 900MHz but that took a huge vcore increase compared to this.
>
> Happy happy. Joy joy.
> --
> TTFN,
>
> Shaun.
Great job Shaun. Yep, these C2Ds and Quads bring back the old Coppermine
days. I once had a 700/100fsb that made the 1gig point for my first "gigger"
system...... The cheap (relatively) 300mhz Celrons that would do 500
easily. Those Celerons were in the same price range as the E4500s IIRC.
Probably even more considering inflation. The best OC I have had over the P4
period is an I630/EM64T(3Ghz) I have running very stable at 3.6Ghz and am
fairly proud to get it that far with air. It's performance is not even close
to my Q6600 @ 3.35Ghz on liquid cooling and the Striker Extreme. I didn't
get lucky with this silicon. It takes a ton of voltage to get it to 3.4Ghz,
so I am just going to leave it here. My experience with this particular
processor is that once you get to the 1.35v Vcore area, you are getting to
the max OC no matter what your temps are. My max temps never go above the
55C range at whatever voltage I throw at it.


Ed
 >> Stay informed about: E4500 @ 3.3GHz on air. 

Brett Kline wrote:
> ~misfit~ wrote:
>> Ok, I think I'll leave it at that: (It goes higher stably [3.4
>> tested] but summer isn't here yet and it's about 8° hotter)
>>
>> http://test.internet-webmaster.de/upload/1194947570.jpg
>>
>> CPU Intel E4500
>> Mobo Asus P5K-E WiFi-AS
>> CPU cooler: Thermaltake Mini Typhoon.
>>
>> It's been a while since my last 50% overclock. A Coppermine Celeron
>> 600MHz @ 900MHz but that took a huge vcore increase compared to this.
>>
>> Happy happy. Joy joy.
>
>
> Take a bow man. Impressive.

Thank you kind sir.

> Is Vcore actually 1.34V?

With TAT and Orthos running consecutively, yes, it sags a bit to 1.34V. At
idle it's sitting at 1.36V.

> What brand of RAM and which settings are
> being used?

I used the cheapest RAM I could get. A pair of 1GB Transcend JMK2GDDR2-8K
DDR2-800 CAS-5. Rated at 1.8v. It'll run at 445MHz (the fastest I've had it)
Memtest stable at 1.8v. However, currently the only option in the BIOS for
me that was possible/probable with that CPU FSB was to use a 4:5 ratio, so
it's only running at 375MHz. I might play a bit with that yet, my first
priority is always the CPU, then maybe tweak RAM.

> Did you hardware mod anything?

No, not in this setup. Oh, only the Mini Typhoon. It sits on the CPU at 45°
to the CPU orientation so the corners of the base of the heatsink stuck out
the sides of the CPU socket and interfered with some capacitors. I ground
the corners:

http://test.internet-webmaster.de/upload/1194771951.jpg

then lapped it. (No picture post-lapping, I also dressed it a bit with a
file before lapping). I think I just got lucky with the silicon.

Cheers,
--
Shaun.
 >> Stay informed about: E4500 @ 3.3GHz on air. 

Ed Medlin wrote:
> "~misfit~" <misfitnz RemoveThis @yahoot.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4739754d$1@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
>> Ok, I think I'll leave it at that: (It goes higher stably [3.4
>> tested] but summer isn't here yet and it's about 8° hotter)
>>
>> http://test.internet-webmaster.de/upload/1194947570.jpg
>>
>> CPU Intel E4500
>> Mobo Asus P5K-E WiFi-AS
>> CPU cooler: Thermaltake Mini Typhoon.
>>
>> It's been a while since my last 50% overclock. A Coppermine Celeron
>> 600MHz @ 900MHz but that took a huge vcore increase compared to this.
>>
>> Happy happy. Joy joy.
>> --
>> TTFN,
>>
>> Shaun.
> Great job Shaun.

Thanks Ed.

> Yep, these C2Ds and Quads bring back the old
> Coppermine days. I once had a 700/100fsb that made the 1gig point for
> my first "gigger" system......

What a coincidence! I had a 700/100 Slot 1 PIII that would also get along
quite well. It'd do 933 but the old mobo I had it in didn't like getting to
1GHz, It'd POST fine but would corrupt the HDD everytime I tried to boot
into Windows.

> The cheap (relatively) 300mhz
> Celrons that would do 500 easily. Those Celerons were in the same
> price range as the E4500s IIRC. Probably even more considering
> inflation.

Yeah, I can't get over the value for money I've got with this CPU. Ok, I had
to buy a reasonable board to put it in to get to that. However, it's a P35
and should be good for a Core 2 Quad Penryn in 18 months or so when the
price comes down.

> The best OC I have had over the P4 period is an
> I630/EM64T(3Ghz) I have running very stable at 3.6Ghz and am fairly
> proud to get it that far with air.

Once Intel dropped the Tualatin line I gave up on them and their P4s. I
never owned one. After my 1.1GHz Tualeron on 133 FSB for 1.46GHz (which I
still have running ) I played with AMDs for a while. I still have an XP1800+
(Stock 1.53GHz) that is running at 2.2GHz, on air, using a mild vcore
increase and a $7 TR2 cooler. I should actually put a heat pipe cooler on
that puppy (they weren't common then) and see how high it'll go. <g>

> It's performance is not even close
> to my Q6600 @ 3.35Ghz on liquid cooling and the Striker Extreme.

There was really a big jump in performance between the P4 era CPUs and these
Core 2's huh? I have a Core 2 Solo Celeron 420 1.6GHz that eats my
flatmate's Barton XP3200+ running at 2.2GHz. The Celeron basically cost
pocket-change whereas the Barton was a big-ticket item 4 years ago. The
Celeron 420 also dissapates minimal heat, (35W?) would make a good PVR or
similar.

> I
> didn't get lucky with this silicon.



G0 stepping?

> It takes a ton of voltage to get
> it to 3.4Ghz, so I am just going to leave it here.

Hey, 3.35GHz is nothing to sneeze at. With four cores that's a damn powerful
machine. I would have liked a quad but with their higher thermal output
would have had to go liquid cooling as well to get a decent OC, sadly beyond
my budget. I'm hoping that the Penryn quads will run cool enough for me to
try my luck with one of those on air. I really like this all-copper
Thermaltake Mini Typhoon.

> My experience with
> this particular processor is that once you get to the 1.35v Vcore
> area, you are getting to the max OC no matter what your temps are. My
> max temps never go above the 55C range at whatever voltage I throw at
> it.

I've had this CPU stable at 3.4GHz but it took 1.41V and it was hitting just
on 70°C under load on a relatively cool evening. That's not within my
comfort zone, although some folks would run it there. (Not much point in a
high OC if you're risking thermal throttling IMO.) Also, I'd like this CPU
to last until I can afford a quad 35nm CPU so decided to settle on the
3.3GHz/<60°C/50% overclock. On a hot day it might go to the mid 60's. I'm OK
with that.

Cheers,
--
Shaun.
 >> Stay informed about: E4500 @ 3.3GHz on air. 

~misfit~ wrote:
>
> http://test.internet-webmaster.de/upload/1194771951.jpg
>
> then lapped it. (No picture post-lapping, I also dressed it a bit
> with a file before lapping). I think I just got lucky with the
> silicon.


Is the CPU socket surrounded on two sides by caps as shown here?
http://images10.newegg.com/NeweggImage/productimage/13-131-196-03.jpg




--
This product is meant for educational purposes only. Any resemblance to
real persons, living or dead is purely coincidental. Void where
prohibited. Some assembly required. List each check separately by bank
number. Batteries not included. Contents may settle during shipment.
 >> Stay informed about: E4500 @ 3.3GHz on air. 

"~misfit~" <misfitnz.RemoveThis@yahoot.com.au> wrote in message news:4739754d$1@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
> Ok, I think I'll leave it at that: (It goes higher stably [3.4 tested] but
> summer isn't here yet and it's about 8° hotter)
>
> http://test.internet-webmaster.de/upload/1194947570.jpg
>
> CPU Intel E4500
> Mobo Asus P5K-E WiFi-AS
> CPU cooler: Thermaltake Mini Typhoon.
>
> It's been a while since my last 50% overclock. A Coppermine Celeron 600MHz @
> 900MHz but that took a huge vcore increase compared to this.
>
> Happy happy. Joy joy.

Was there ever such thing as a true Coppermine Celeron? I thought
the cache latency difference (P3 CuMine=0, Celeron=1) was
consistent throughout the two chip lines.
 >> Stay informed about: E4500 @ 3.3GHz on air. 

Brett Kline wrote:
> ~misfit~ wrote:
>>
>> http://test.internet-webmaster.de/upload/1194771951.jpg
>>
>> then lapped it. (No picture post-lapping, I also dressed it a bit
>> with a file before lapping). I think I just got lucky with the
>> silicon.
>
>
> Is the CPU socket surrounded on two sides by caps as shown here?
> http://images10.newegg.com/NeweggImage/productimage/13-131-196-03.jpg

Yes, that's it. However, the caps are only a mm or two higher than the CPU
and don't impede the fitting of a standard HSF. As I said, the Mini Typhoon
sits on the CPU at 45° so that it's corners stick out the sides of the
socket. I don't know why Thermaltake didn't take the corners off themeslves
as, now it's modded and fitted, it's an awesome cooler. (Only two corners
needed two be removed but I prefer to do things symetrically so I removed
all four of mine.)

Cheers,
--
Shaun.
 >> Stay informed about: E4500 @ 3.3GHz on air. 

nospam DeleteThis @sbcglobal.invalid.net wrote:
> "~misfit~" <misfitnz DeleteThis @yahoot.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4739754d$1@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
>> Ok, I think I'll leave it at that: (It goes higher stably [3.4
>> tested] but summer isn't here yet and it's about 8° hotter)
>>
>> http://test.internet-webmaster.de/upload/1194947570.jpg
>>
>> CPU Intel E4500
>> Mobo Asus P5K-E WiFi-AS
>> CPU cooler: Thermaltake Mini Typhoon.
>>
>> It's been a while since my last 50% overclock. A Coppermine Celeron
>> 600MHz @ 900MHz but that took a huge vcore increase compared to this.
>>
>> Happy happy. Joy joy.
>
> Was there ever such thing as a true Coppermine Celeron? I thought
> the cache latency difference (P3 CuMine=0, Celeron=1) was
> consistent throughout the two chip lines.

I think that the term "Coppermine" was used to refer to the 180nm fab
'flip-chip' range of CPUs, regardless of their cache latency. A lot of
sites/reviewers called them "Coppermine lite" as they only had 128Kb L2
compared with the PIII's 256.
--
TTFN,

Shaun.
 >> Stay informed about: E4500 @ 3.3GHz on air. 

Brett Kline wrote:
> ~misfit~ wrote:
>>
>> http://test.internet-webmaster.de/upload/1194771951.jpg
>>
>> then lapped it. (No picture post-lapping, I also dressed it a bit
>> with a file before lapping). I think I just got lucky with the
>> silicon.
>
>
> Is the CPU socket surrounded on two sides by caps as shown here?
> http://images10.newegg.com/NeweggImage/productimage/13-131-196-03.jpg

Brett, I feel that my case probably has a bit to do with the good cooling
I'm getting. It's the iCute one reviewed here, the middle one (and
coincidently the only one within my budget) on this page:

http://pcworld.co.nz/pcworld/pcw.nsf/reviews/56FC71DAD9E5C67BCC2571ED000C70D2
--
TTFN,

Shaun.
 >> Stay informed about: E4500 @ 3.3GHz on air. 

'~misfit~' wrote:
| I think that the term "Coppermine" was used to refer to the 180nm fab
| 'flip-chip' range of CPUs, regardless of their cache latency. A lot of
| sites/reviewers called them "Coppermine lite" as they only had 128Kb L2
| compared with the PIII's 256.
_____

'Coppermine' Pentium III is the first Intel series to have on-die L2 cache
(256 KBytes). The first Celeron series, the 'Covington' had no L2 cache and
included just two CPUs, the Celeron 266 and the Celeron 300. The Celeron
300A 'Mendocino' series (300 MHz through 533 MHz) was the first Celeron
series to have on-die L2 cache (128 KBytes). The Celeron 'Coppermine'
series (128 KBytes) included the Celeron 533A through the Celeron 1.1 GHz.
All 'Coppermine' CPUs were 180 nm process. The Pentium III 'Coppermine' and
the Celeron 'Coppermine' have the same L2 cache latency because they are the
SAME CPU save that Intel disabled half the L2 cache, giving the Pentium III
'Coppermine' an 8-way associative 256 KByte L2 cache vs. the Celeron
'Coppermine' a 4-way associative 128 KByte L2 cache.

Back in the day I overclocked Celeron 300A 'Mendocino' (~ 500 MHz, limited
by PCI bus speed), Celeron 533A 'Coppermine' (~ 850 MHz), and Pentium III 1
B GHz (100 MHz FSB ~ 1.33 GHz) CPUs. But nothing beat the thrill of the
Celeron 300A overclocked to 550 MHz and handily beating the Pentium III 500
MHz with its twice as large but half as fast L2 cache.

Phil Weldon

"~misfit~" <misfitnz.RemoveThis@yahoot.com.au> wrote in message
news:473a32f8$1@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
| nospam.RemoveThis@sbcglobal.invalid.net wrote:
| > "~misfit~" <misfitnz.RemoveThis@yahoot.com.au> wrote in message
| > news:4739754d$1@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
| >> Ok, I think I'll leave it at that: (It goes higher stably [3.4
| >> tested] but summer isn't here yet and it's about 8° hotter)
| >>
| >> http://test.internet-webmaster.de/upload/1194947570.jpg
| >>
| >> CPU Intel E4500
| >> Mobo Asus P5K-E WiFi-AS
| >> CPU cooler: Thermaltake Mini Typhoon.
| >>
| >> It's been a while since my last 50% overclock. A Coppermine Celeron
| >> 600MHz @ 900MHz but that took a huge vcore increase compared to this.
| >>
| >> Happy happy. Joy joy.
| >
| > Was there ever such thing as a true Coppermine Celeron? I thought
| > the cache latency difference (P3 CuMine=0, Celeron=1) was
| > consistent throughout the two chip lines.
|
| I think that the term "Coppermine" was used to refer to the 180nm fab
| 'flip-chip' range of CPUs, regardless of their cache latency. A lot of
| sites/reviewers called them "Coppermine lite" as they only had 128Kb L2
| compared with the PIII's 256.
| --
| TTFN,
|
| Shaun.
|
|
 >> Stay informed about: E4500 @ 3.3GHz on air. 

Phil Weldon wrote:
> '~misfit~' wrote:
>> I think that the term "Coppermine" was used to refer to the 180nm fab
>> 'flip-chip' range of CPUs, regardless of their cache latency. A lot
>> of sites/reviewers called them "Coppermine lite" as they only had
>> 128Kb L2 compared with the PIII's 256.
> _____
>
> 'Coppermine' Pentium III is the first Intel series to have on-die L2
> cache (256 KBytes). The first Celeron series, the 'Covington' had no
> L2 cache and included just two CPUs, the Celeron 266 and the Celeron
> 300. The Celeron 300A 'Mendocino' series (300 MHz through 533 MHz)
> was the first Celeron series to have on-die L2 cache (128 KBytes).
> The Celeron 'Coppermine' series (128 KBytes) included the Celeron
> 533A through the Celeron 1.1 GHz. All 'Coppermine' CPUs were 180 nm
> process. The Pentium III 'Coppermine' and the Celeron 'Coppermine'
> have the same L2 cache latency because they are the SAME CPU save
> that Intel disabled half the L2 cache, giving the Pentium III
> 'Coppermine' an 8-way associative 256 KByte L2 cache vs. the Celeron
> 'Coppermine' a 4-way associative 128 KByte L2 cache.

Hehee! I knew all that, except the cache latency question threw me and I
don't have a Coppermine Celly in a mobo to test right now. Therefore I
couldn't answer it without Google which I deemed overkill for the purposes
of the answer to the question.

> Back in the day I overclocked Celeron 300A 'Mendocino' (~ 500 MHz,
> limited by PCI bus speed), Celeron 533A 'Coppermine' (~ 850 MHz), and
> Pentium III 1 B GHz (100 MHz FSB ~ 1.33 GHz) CPUs. But nothing beat
> the thrill of the Celeron 300A overclocked to 550 MHz and handily
> beating the Pentium III 500 MHz with its twice as large but half as
> fast L2 cache.

It seems we have a similar OC "pedigree" Phil, at least the early-ish years.
--
Cheers,
Shaun.


> "~misfit~" <misfitnz DeleteThis @yahoot.com.au> wrote in message
> news:473a32f8$1@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
>> nospam DeleteThis @sbcglobal.invalid.net wrote:
>>> "~misfit~" <misfitnz DeleteThis @yahoot.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:4739754d$1@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
>>>> Ok, I think I'll leave it at that: (It goes higher stably [3.4
>>>> tested] but summer isn't here yet and it's about 8° hotter)
>>>>
>>>> http://test.internet-webmaster.de/upload/1194947570.jpg
>>>>
>>>> CPU Intel E4500
>>>> Mobo Asus P5K-E WiFi-AS
>>>> CPU cooler: Thermaltake Mini Typhoon.
>>>>
>>>> It's been a while since my last 50% overclock. A Coppermine Celeron
>>>> 600MHz @ 900MHz but that took a huge vcore increase compared to
>>>> this.
>>>>
>>>> Happy happy. Joy joy.
>>>
>>> Was there ever such thing as a true Coppermine Celeron? I thought
>>> the cache latency difference (P3 CuMine=0, Celeron=1) was
>>> consistent throughout the two chip lines.
>>
>> I think that the term "Coppermine" was used to refer to the 180nm fab
>> 'flip-chip' range of CPUs, regardless of their cache latency. A lot
>> of sites/reviewers called them "Coppermine lite" as they only had
>> 128Kb L2 compared with the PIII's 256.
>> --
>> TTFN,
>>
>> Shaun.
 >> Stay informed about: E4500 @ 3.3GHz on air. 

"Phil Weldon" <not.disclosed RemoveThis @example.com> wrote in message news:13jkgv96kpin32d@corp.supernews.com...
> All 'Coppermine' CPUs were 180 nm process. The Pentium III 'Coppermine' and
> the Celeron 'Coppermine' have the same L2 cache latency because they are the
> SAME CPU save that Intel disabled half the L2 cache, giving the Pentium III
> 'Coppermine' an 8-way associative 256 KByte L2 cache vs. the Celeron
> 'Coppermine' a 4-way associative 128 KByte L2 cache.

Phil, I don't believe your claim about the cache latency is correct.
Look at the chart about 1/3 the way down this page:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/celeron-1200.html

Even the later Tullie Celerons had a cache latency of 1, and I'm
almost 100% sure the earlier Coppermine Celerons did as well.
 >> Stay informed about: E4500 @ 3.3GHz on air. 

'nospam' wrote:
| Phil, I don't believe your claim about the cache latency is correct.
| Look at the chart about 1/3 the way down this page:
| http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/celeron-1200.html
|
| Even the later Tullie Celerons had a cache latency of 1, and I'm
| almost 100% sure the earlier Coppermine Celerons did as well.
_____

Seven years ago when 'Coppermine' arrived, James Yu at Firingsquad.com
wrote:

We sent off an e-mail to Intel asking about the differences between the P3
and the new Celeron. Here's what Intel's George Alfs had to say:

The 0.18 micron Pentium(R) III processor has 256KB of eight-way set
associative on die L2 cache. The latest Celeron processor has 128K of
four-way set associative on die L2 cache. Both processors have the same
clock counts as far as latency. We don't disclose how many clocks, but they
are the same for both products.

at

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/p3vc2/page2.asp

Phil Weldon


nospam.RemoveThis@sbcglobal.invalid.net wrote in message
news:iZt_i.59549$RX.20650@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...

| "Phil Weldon" not.disclosed.RemoveThis@example.com wrote in message
news:13jkgv96kpin32d@corp.supernews.com...
| > All 'Coppermine' CPUs were 180 nm process. The Pentium III 'Coppermine'
and
| > the Celeron 'Coppermine' have the same L2 cache latency because they are
the
| > SAME CPU save that Intel disabled half the L2 cache, giving the Pentium
III
| > 'Coppermine' an 8-way associative 256 KByte L2 cache vs. the Celeron
| > 'Coppermine' a 4-way associative 128 KByte L2 cache.
|
| Phil, I don't believe your claim about the cache latency is correct.
| Look at the chart about 1/3 the way down this page:
| http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/celeron-1200.html
|
| Even the later Tullie Celerons had a cache latency of 1, and I'm
| almost 100% sure the earlier Coppermine Celerons did as well.
|
|
|
 >> Stay informed about: E4500 @ 3.3GHz on air. 

> G0 stepping?
>
yep.........as far as I know that is the only stepping on the Q6600s. I just
didn't get as lucky with this quad as I did with the E6600 which would
easily do 3.5Ghz.

>> It takes a ton of voltage to get
>> it to 3.4Ghz, so I am just going to leave it here.
>
> Hey, 3.35GHz is nothing to sneeze at. With four cores that's a damn
> powerful machine. I would have liked a quad but with their higher thermal
> output would have had to go liquid cooling as well to get a decent OC,
> sadly beyond my budget. I'm hoping that the Penryn quads will run cool
> enough for me to try my luck with one of those on air. I really like this
> all-copper Thermaltake Mini Typhoon.
>

Yea, the performance is very good. 177000+ in 3DMark 06 with the SLI'd 8800s
at stock speeds.

>> My experience with
>> this particular processor is that once you get to the 1.35v Vcore
>> area, you are getting to the max OC no matter what your temps are. My
>> max temps never go above the 55C range at whatever voltage I throw at
>> it.
>
> I've had this CPU stable at 3.4GHz but it took 1.41V and it was hitting
> just on 70°C under load on a relatively cool evening. That's not within my
> comfort zone, although some folks would run it there. (Not much point in a
> high OC if you're risking thermal throttling IMO.) Also, I'd like this CPU
> to last until I can afford a quad 35nm CPU so decided to settle on the
> 3.3GHz/<60°C/50% overclock. On a hot day it might go to the mid 60's. I'm
> OK with that.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Shaun.
I get a bit leary of data corruption when I see temps that high too. I don't
like to see much over 60c if there is any way around it. That I630 P4 I have
runs in the 60s at stock speeds and doesn't change at 3.6Ghz. Max temps stay
around 65c either at stock 3Ghz or at 3.6, so I run it at 3.6........


Ed
>
 >> Stay informed about: E4500 @ 3.3GHz on air.