Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › Which is better
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Which is better - Page 2

post #11 of 12
all the x2's only clock to about 3.2-3.4 ghz, so the lowest number brisbane is actually the best deal here
It's a computer
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
e6300 @ 2.1Ghz biostar 945p-a7a bfg 7900gs 1x1024MB, 2x512 MB ddr2 667 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
WD 160GB SATA2 +40gig ide philips combo drive Windows xp pro sp2 21" trinitron crt 
PowerCaseMouse
ultra 500watt coolermaster centurion5 razer diamondback 
  hide details  
Reply
It's a computer
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
e6300 @ 2.1Ghz biostar 945p-a7a bfg 7900gs 1x1024MB, 2x512 MB ddr2 667 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
WD 160GB SATA2 +40gig ide philips combo drive Windows xp pro sp2 21" trinitron crt 
PowerCaseMouse
ultra 500watt coolermaster centurion5 razer diamondback 
  hide details  
Reply
post #12 of 12
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenHagerty View Post
Go Brisbane, the 3600+, you can hit 3 ghz with that beastinator
Thats what I have now. I have run it up to 3.28 but it won't bench at that. It will bench at 3.19 so its great, but I wanted that bigger cache.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › Which is better