mrfixitx100 wrote:What did you do with the other 5 cpu's ?
Stuffed them in systems, they could all attain at least 2.4ghz. I also did some "playing" with mobile Celerons, while the end result was not as good as with P4m's, the "numbers" were similar.
seems like good deal . 6 cpu's for 160 bux ?
The most expensive was $30, I have paid as low as $10.
if you were going for pure cpu speed, you could have turned down the memory divider.
Sure, but that was missing the whole point. This whole thing started as an inquiry at another Forum, I had some time, and a few extra $ to play, and play I did, taking clues from here and there, and turning them into fast el-cheapo systems.
Systems, I might add, that run and play like a P3 on steroids, rather than a P4, though not quite as good at the things a P4 is good at, they play fine, and the investment was minimal (no "special" motherboards, no "expensive" heatsinks, just a bunch of "off the shelf" obsolete stuff (other than the ram), what overclocking used to be, turning junk into gold).
You won't get high temps (~50C) on a venice unless you have 1.75vcore and your at 2.7-3.1GHz. Or exceptionally poor cooling.
lgeis wrote:Heya, Lickety!
OK...forgive my ignorance, I'm not a hardware expert at all, but am I to consider that for $160 I got something along the lines of an FX-53 or so, for only the additional effort of screwing with my BIOS a bit?!?