I've got an Intel Wolfdale E8400 on its way to me and need a motherboard and RAM.
I've read about these CPUs quite a bit and some people have reported that their motherboards haven't recognized them correctly. I don't know if these were older boards that didn't have a BIOS update available yet at the time the users wrote about their experiences, or if some socket-775 boards just won't work with them.

Overclocking isn't something I've had a lot of interest in in the past, but in reading about these CPUs they seem to have so much headroom for overclocking that I'd like to do some in a conservative way. I read an article on Tom's Hardware specifically about overclocking the E8000 series and I'd like to follow their approach and overclock the FSB to 400MHz and match it up with some DDR2-800 memory to keep it running synchronously with the FSB.

I'd like some recommendations for a motherboard with integrated video that would suit my needs and allow me to do the basic overclocking I'm interested in. I'm mostly clueless about things like specific chipsets and why someone would favor one over another so I need the help from those of you who know a lot more about these things than I do. Thanks.

No board with onboard video will OC really good, but Intel will release there new G45 in a few months from now, giving you a 10 Unified shader processors . For now it’s the G35 or G33 that you can buy.

But, if you have a case for a "full" ATX board then a GIGABYTE GA-P35-DS3L with a cheap PCI-E video card will do way more in performance and overclocking!

I wasn't aware that mobos with onboard video didn't overclock well. Why is that? Punto, this is ironic - I've never had a mobo with onboard video before, and you're the one who convinced me to quit avoiding them. Now you tell me they don't overclock well. Ugh!

I don't know that integrated video is going to affect overclocking all that much...but what's the point if you have integrated video anyway?

I have to second the option to get a good P35 based motherboard and a cheap PCIe video card. You can get 8600GT based cards for less than $100US. For that matter, you can get a decent 9600GT based card for ~$150US. Either of them will be better than integrated video.

That depends on what you do! Now you are talking about OCing the E8400 as high as you can, so you need other stuff for that, nothing more .

EDIT: by the way, the mobo I advised you here cost about 89USD, ad a simple PCI-E 64bit card on it and you will pay the same price as a board with G33/G35 chipset.

I don't know what that means? When Punto said that boards with integrated video don't overclock too well I thought he meant that overclocking would affect the integrated video, not the other way around?

No no, I have no interest in overclocking it as high as I can. I don't want to have to do all kinds of extra cooling just to keep the thing from blowing up. I just want to overclock it a little bit, as shown in the link to the Tom's Hardware article in my first post. For 'basic' overclocking they simply upped the FSB from 333MHz to 400MHz and took their E8500 CPU from 3.16GHz to 3.8GHz and reported that it ran completely stable. Doing that to the E8400 would take it from 3.0 to 3.6GHz. That's all I'm really interested in doing.

It's not that I *need* to overclock, but since these chips seem to overclock so well I figured I can either leave it stock and get DDR2-667 memory or 'mildly' overclock it and get DDR2-800 memory. Just seems like the latter would be a better choice since I'd get an extra 600MHz out of it.

EDIT: I have no problem getting a separate graphics card, Punto. I've never had integrated graphics before, but the last time I was planning a computer build you and I had an ongoing conversation about it and you suggested I go with onboard video since I wasn't (and still am not) a gamer. I ended up not going with onboard graphics because I had an ATI Radeon 9250 card (AGP) I had never used so I ended up using that.

I'm not familiar with ATI's X series of cards, the 9250 has been the 'best' video card I've ever used, so should I assume the X700 series that the Sapphire card is based on is even better? It's only $20 too and has all 5 star reviews. Getting a card like that gives me more motherboard choices too.

Actually, the NVIDIA nForce 630i/MCP73 boards are pretty sweet stuff. LGA775 45nm support, 1333MHz FSB, SATA2 + RAID 0/1/5 with PATA, integrated GeForce 7 graphics, DVI and/or HDMI, SPDIF, GigE, and heck, even eSATA!

Be assured that the onboard GeForce will beat the crap out of any Intel's GMA chips.

Take a look at this board, the XFX MG-630i-7109:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16813141007

Oh, and not to mention great overclocking

No they don’t, the next gen will. Even there highest clocked 630MHz 7150 GPU will not outperform onboard Intel, even AMDs 690 series for AMD CPUs will do better still. The nVidia GPU has just more features, that’s true.

I see motherboard specs like Memory Standard: DDR2 1066.
What exactly does this specification mean? Is it the max speed ram the board supports w/o overclocking?
Is it ok to use DDR2-800 in a board with a 1066 spec? I don't want to overclock my memory, just the FSB.

Is using DDR2-800 in a motherboard with a DDR2-800 memory standard the same
as using DDR2-800 in a motherboard with a DDR2-1066 memory standard as far as performance goes?

Another question: at what point do PCIe video cards require a dedicated power connector from the power supply?
Can I assume the inexpensive Sapphire card you linked me to doesn't require one?

No, he definitely meant that the integrated video would affect how much you could overclock.




Just realize that overclocking has the potential of reducing the life of the CPU and/or other components. If you're not gaming or running anything else CPU intensive todays CPUs are plenty fast enough without overclocking them any. For that matter, overclocking them isn't even gaining gamers that much more in the way of performance right now. It's not like the days of the Celeron 300A where getting 450MHz or 504MHz out of it was a huge jump in performance for the entire system for no extra cost at all.

The X700 is a generation newer than your current 9250. Your 9250 was more of an entry-level type card not really meant for gaming. The X700 was more of a mainstream type part meant for the casual/occassional gamer. It's not the latest generation, but that shouldn't matter since you aren't gaming. Even if you were, you'd still be able to play the previous generation of games with decent frame rates on the X700.


The X700 doesn't require additional power. The PCIe slot provides more power than an AGP slot does so additional power isn't required until you get to the higher end products.

That´s right, you have to remember taht in most cases you OC the Video core too.

This is not directly directed to you nmX.Memnoch, but this is what I would like to say:

I do OC as much as I can (10% less then stable, so not 3.66GHz but 3.33Gz for my setup) to play the latest games on a not so powerful Video card, but then, I make big jumps from 2.0 to 3.33GHz (RAM 800 to 1000MHz with the same or better timings then stock) and still on my OCed 7200GS (yeah, don’t start please ).

Sure it lowers life of components, but most of us will not use the components more then 2 years. To bring an E8400 to 3.6GHz will not require more voltage in most cases, so I would say it would have no negative effect at all to set it 20% over its stock speed. Also a P35 can handle everything just fine, even with tight RAM/chipset timings and the stock cooling .

By the way, that Celeron 300A idea, that never stopped. I started with 486DX2 50MHz to get them on 80MHz, then the biggest OCer after that was the Pentium pro 180 that could hit twice the stock speed by a voltage mod (as the design was not 3.3 but 5volt) and brought it over 300Mhz . Then there was the Celeron 2 600Mhz, way up to 1130MHz. These days we have the E1200 and the E21xx series that OC to twice the stock speed, and with tight RAM/chipset timings you will get less performance loss because of the smaller cache, and that’s in contradiction to other sites that say that a CPU with 1MB shared second level cache doesn’t give you any thing more over 3GHz.

Oh I'm not saying that there aren't gains in performance to be had. My point was that if you aren't gaming or running a distributed computing app then the gains aren't as immediately "visible". IE/Firefox is only going to open so fast...

Back in the days of the Celeron 300A, getting a good overclock out of it was immediately noticeable in anything you did on the system. Going from 2GHz to 3GHz doesn't give the same feeling in general system performance.

And yes, I know what you mean about the 486's. My first adventure in overclocking was with a 486DX 33MHz to 40MHz. It ended up frying the motherboard after several months.

That’s true, office apps will do nothing really faster, but multicore will when you open more apps at the same time. But hey, in this case there is nothing to lose .

For real, how did you manage that? I must say that I was scared to try running my Pentium pro at 5volt as well and swapping out some components too from the motherboard; but it worked and kept working with the big amplifier cooling blocks on it, even working so good hat I started my own business with it in 1997 .

The main thing I'm going to be doing is editing large .wav files and encoding thousands of wavs to both lossy & lossless formats. One of tests they do on Tom's Hardware is encoding a full length CD to MP3, and you can see the performance increase they get by overclocking. I'd like to get this kind of improvement too.




That's the impression I got too from reading the Tom's Hardware article on overclocking the E8000's.

It looks like a P35-based motherboard like you guys have suggested is a great choice, and I'll just get an inexpensive video card to go along with it, like the Sapphire Punto showed me.

One more question: I'm going to go with 2GB of memory (2 x 1GB) - is there any brand you'd suggest using with that Gigabyte brand motherboard? I ask because regardless of how many good reviews a particular brand of memory has, I see a lot of comments from people on Newegg about how Brand A memory doesn't work well with Brand Y motherboard, but when they changed to Brand B memory everything was fine. And yet for someone else Brand A memory worked fine with their Brand Z motherboard. Seems like circular mess I can't make sense of. I was thinking of just getting Crucial memory since that's what I've used in the past successfully, but now even the higher end Crucial Ballistic is getting bad reviews on Newegg. I know you have to take all reviews with a grain of salt, but it's still a concern.

Personally, I'm a bit partial to OCZ, Corsair, and Kingston. I've got 4 sticks of Crucial Ballistix DDR2-1066 here - 2 of which are dead after only 3 months of use. I'm currently waiting until I have the time to sit on hold to get an RMA number from Crucial.

All my computers at home use OCZ Platinum, my computer at work uses Corsair XMS2, and Kingston has always been a simple, cheap "fall back" option for troubleshooting.

I use just ADATA/VDATA RAM, although there timings are not the best, they can hit high frequencies without raising the voltage above 2.1. For the low price on DRAM now, you could get 2x 2GB stick for less then 70USD at this moment with 5-5-5-18 timings (tuned at 5-5-4-13) and there Vitesta 4GB(2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 for 81USD with tighter timings at 4-4-4-12. Both work very well.

Eh...who knew about cooling back then? The 486DX 33's didn't even have a heatsink on 'em...

Okay, that part, but I thought they had a small passive cooled heat sink on them, unlike the SX versions that were even running at 16MHz (almost bought it as my first PC from ACER!)...

Yes, I've noticed that memory is quite cheap at the moment. I don't know very much about memory timings.... how much of a difference is there between 5-5-5-18 and 4-4-4-12?

What about voltage? I see some listed with a specific figure, like 1.8v, while others have a range, 1.9v-2.1v. I was reading some memory-related threads on a forum and someone commented that it's possible the motherboard wouldn't boot if the memory required voltage over 1.8v, and that you'd need to temporarily use some cheap DDR2 to get the board to boot so you could get into the BIOS and change the voltage settings to support higher voltage. The post was from 11/2006.

Also, I'm not sure how much of a speed/performance difference I'll see between 2GB and 4GB. Thoughts?

Thanks again.

Can you recommend another video card? I checked the other day and there were over 100 of the Sapphire cards in stock. Went back today to start adding thing to my shopping cart wishlist and it's suddenly become a 'deactivated item'

They were deactivated yesterday, let me see the next "not to bad " card . brb.

EDIT: SAPPHIRE 100165L Radeon X1650PRO 512MB 128-bit GDDR2

Sure it’s way more expensive, but I think they will respect the mail in rebate. There are a few "pros" over the x700, like faster GPU, dual DVI, 128bit memory interface, better cooler (less noisy) and more hardware features.

It's not that much more expensive.

I don't expect you to spend hours picking out my individual components so let me ask you this: What criteria are you using when you look at these video cards? I was looking at them earlier today as well and there weren't any other X700 based cards (which ATI has discontinued). The next jump up on Newegg is to the X1550 series but they look like they have inferior specs to the X700. The X1650 you showed me above does look better though.

I obviously don't need a $500+ card, but where should I draw the line? At what point would a card be considered overkill for my needs? I guess you need the best cards for the newest games, but what's the difference between a $500 card and a $50 card when it comes to web browsing and less intensive games? Or what about just going to a very interactive webpage/website with lots of graphics... would it display faster with a better videocard or does the time it takes a page to load depend purely on your internet connection speed?

I can build PCs, format HDDs, edit the registry, and make Norton Ghost images, but it's questions like these that I've never learned the answers to. What can you tell me?

The x1550 is more a renamed x1300, not really a powerful card. If you like to play games you would need a card that can handle textures well and fast, so any thing less then GDDR3 would not pull the latest games due to lack of memory bandwidth.

Then you have vertex and pixel shaders and lately also combined shaders and programmable shaders so a shader processor can do vertexes or pixels. I will try to find something to read on that later. (There are geometry shaders too by the way).

EDIT: There you go, read this first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shader

Are you anti-GeForce? There are even more of them on Newegg than Radeon cards.

No, I’m not anti nVidia, but for the price ATI has better cards, however, the high-end section is dominated by nVidia.

I have to be honest, that video stuff on Wiki was way over my head, lots of terms to try to understand and keep track of. Maybe with continued re-reading it'll sink in.

I was looking through Newegg's offerings and looking at more expensive cards with big rebates
Unfortunated they don't take the rebates into account when you sort the cards by price.
Any game I have here is at least 4 years old. I just went on Newegg to look at the games that were reviewed most: Crysis, Battlefield, Call of Duty, HalfLife, Unreal, Halo, World of Warcraft.... I've only heard of about 3 of those before, the rest are Greek to me. I guess that gives you an idea where I stand on gaming.

Is there some kind of rule of thumb to knowing what level of graphics card you need?

Let me ask these question again - I obviously don't need a $500+ card, but where do I draw the line? At what point would a card be considered overkill for my needs? What's the difference between a $500 card and a $50 card when it comes to web browsing and less intensive games? What about just going to a very interactive webpage/website with lots of graphics... would it display faster with a better videocard or does the time it takes a page to load depend purely on your internet connection speed?

No rule on that but, If you want to play the latest titles on average settings, then a nVidia 9600GT would be the best bang for the buck.

Any PCI-E card would be good for that, and the page load time would be dependent on your internet connection indeed.

Sorry for all the questions, but every statement you make makes me think of more.

As you can tell, I don't even know the names of most newer titles. Instead of playing the newest game on average settings, what about older games on the best settings? Same card choice?

Define 'average' vs. 'better' settings. What does Better have that Average doesn't? Better FPS? Higher screen resolution? What?

A 9600GT card will definitely let you play older titles on the higher settings, or at higher resolutions with mid-to-high settings. Especially when you compare it to your current Radeon 9250.

Sometimes you really don't realize how "bad" your gaming experience is until you get a higher-end video card. You may think you're running your games fine with your Radeon 9250 now, but put in a better card and you can feel the difference. The games play smoother, you can turn settings up to see what you've been missing in the way of visual quality, you'll have less eye strain because you won't have to focus on a "stuttering" screen (smoother frame rates), etc, etc.

I would like to add that if you play games on the native LCD/TFT resolution, you eyes are getting less tired too, although screens have become better with non-native resolutions...

E-66, if you have the cash for it and you like to play some newer games (2007/2008) then I really would consider the 9600GT, if you don’t care that much about the latest titles, then go with the x1650pro and swap it out when you want something more. It will be a shock for you any way when you see the speed change you will get with your new system like nmX.Memnoch already said .

The newest games aren't important to me. I also noticed that the 9600 requires its own power connection so that would mean I'd need a new power supply too.

I don't have anything against the x1650 card, but is there anything comparable from nVidia I should look at? You said earlier that at the lower price points ATI has better cards but I figured I'd ask.

What's the next level up in ATI cards I could look at as well? There are A LOT of rebates showing on Newegg right now. Cards that are normally $70+ but with $30 rebates taking them into the $40+ range.

From there you will get the ATI HD2600XT or nVidia GF 8600GT both need a good 350W PSU or a normal 400W PSU or up. Most 9600GT cards come with 2 Molex (5.25") to a 6 pin PCI-E powerconnector so you can use older PSUs that still have the power but not the connector.

What's your current system specs? You may have to get a new power supply anyway.

It's an Antec SmartPower SL300S, about 3 years old.

Specs: http://www.antec.com/specs/sl300s_spe.html

That would be enough to pull a HD2600XT or nVidia GF 8600GT. The +12V line is rated at 15A and the +5V line at 30A. Some crappy new PSU makers will sell this as 400-450W!

Glad to hear it, thanks. I'll have a look and see what's available in those two series of cards and get this whole project nailed down.

Two more questions about memory: If I overclock the FSB to 400MHz and get DDR2 800 memory I won't be overclocking the memory, but what's the deal with voltage? I see some memory listed with a specific figure, like 1.8v, while others have a range, 1.9v-2.1v. What should I be looking for? I was reading some memory-related threads on a forum and someone commented that it's possible the motherboard wouldn't boot if the memory required voltage over 1.8v, and that you'd need to temporarily use some cheap DDR2 to get the board to boot so you could get into the BIOS and change the voltage settings to support higher voltage memory. The post was from 11/2006.

Second question - how much of a difference is there between 5-5-5-18 and 4-4-4-12?

Edit: I'm still not sure what voltage memory I should be looking for, but what about this Corsair memory with a $40 rebate?

That's a rather high voltage for DDR2 800. The lower timings are likely the reason for the higher voltage (basically the memory is "overclocked"...the speed in MHz may be standard, but the timings are faster than the memory chips are rated for at 1.8v, so they require a higher voltage to maintain system stability at those settings).

This happens quite a bit more often with memory than you might think. While it may be perfectly safe to run the memory at the higher voltage, it will also make the memory get hotter than normal. Also, if you reduce the timing to the normal 5-5-5-18 or somewhere in that range, you'll probably be able to lower the voltage to 1.8-1.9v.

So that Corsair would normally run 5-5-5-18 at 1.8v and only runs 4-4-4-12 when upped to 2.1v ?

Regardless of the difference between 4-4-4-12 and 5-5-5-18 when measured in a lab, what real-world difference is there in typical PC use?

The real-world difference isn't noticeable. We're talking nanoseconds here...

Ok, glad to hear it, but why do people make such a big deal about getting the tightest timings that they can if the performance increase is negligible? Just because the potential is there to be tapped?

You'd be surprised in the enthusiast market.

I've got the motherboard and video card taken care of, so hopefully this is my final question about components for this build.

Memory: I'm still not clear on what I should be looking at as far as voltage. Lower is better I guess, but in the specs on Newegg I see some memory listed with single voltage ratings, and other with ranges, like 1.8-2.2v.

I'll be fine with 2GB, so if someone could scan these offerings from Newegg and make some suggestions I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

CORSAIR XMS2 2x1GB DDR2 800 - $25 after MIR

Honestly, I don't think you'll get much better than that. I've got two of those kits in this workstation here, and they do the job just fine.

Just an aside about Corsair. I've had really good luck with them and they do honor their lifetime guaratee. I had some PC400 go south on me a year and a half ago and they were kind enough to send me two matching modules - they paid the postage overseas no less! The RMA etc was handled through their forum and email and all went smoothly. I've had good luck with OCZ, too, but never hd to return any.

I'll throw in a vote for the Corsair as well. I've also used Crucial for years with good success (although I'd have to caution against the current batch of Crucial Ballistix modules...they seem to have hit a rough patch there).

OCZ also gets a vote from me.

Thanks guys, I'm going to go with the Corsair you suggested.

2 gigs for $25, geez. I remember paying $90 for 64 MBs once and that was a decent deal at the time! Buying 2 gigs at that rate would cost $2880! Buying 64 MBs at the current rate would cost 78 cents!

Anyway, thanks again for all the suggestions. The E8400 has been sitting here for a week with nothing to do; looking forward to getting it up and running.

Try 8MB EDO SIMMs for over $300 each!!

Yeah I knew someone would easily top my example. I'm not even going to do the math with that one, wow.