Why not consider the e4300? (200/800FSB, 2mb, C2D, 1.8ghz)

Three reasons:
1) small L2 cache
2) slow bus
3) slow speed

There are some things that you can and should save your money, stupid cases with lights is one such item. But if you are going to crunch, then you need the best cpu that is good for crunching, not cheapest, best designed for crunching and that has a good price. Today that cpu is E6600. I have looked at comparable AMD cpus and none of them any cheaper then E6600 or have more L2 chache then E6600 has.

---

Why not consider the e4300? (200/800FSB, 2mb, C2D, 1.8ghz)

Three reasons:
1) small L2 cache
2) slow bus
3) slow speed

At least items 2&3 are taken care of if you overclock, which was the suggestion. e4300 clocks to 2.4ghz/1066 (e6600) easily, and on cheaper motherboards, which is an advantage.

The cache, well it depends on how cache-sensitive the app is. IMO, the e4300 probably delivers better credit/$, but it will be interesting to determine this once there are some e4300s kicking around on the stats sites.

---

Crunching SETI@Home as a member of the Whirlpool BOINC Teams

Why not consider the e4300? (200/800FSB, 2mb, C2D, 1.8ghz)

Three reasons:
1) small L2 cache
2) slow bus
3) slow speed

At least items 2&3 are taken care of if you overclock, which was the suggestion. e4300 clocks to 2.4ghz/1066 (e6600) easily, and on cheaper motherboards, which is an advantage.

The cache, well it depends on how cache-sensitive the app is. IMO, the e4300 probably delivers better credit/$, but it will be interesting to determine this once there are some e4300s kicking around on the stats sites.

SETI is incredibly cache sensitive, that is why I put it under reason number one.

---

SETI is incredibly cache sensitive, that is why I put it under reason number one.

That's true, although now we're getting to larger cache sizes I wonder where the benefits will diminish...
also, although we're in the SETI forum, the OP was for a 'BOINC' cruncher, and I'm not sure all the projects are so sensitive.

Still, I would rank the e4300 preferable for a true budget build, with the e6600 as preferable, budget permitting.

---

Crunching SETI@Home as a member of the Whirlpool BOINC Teams

SETI is incredibly cache sensitive, that is why I put it under reason number one.

That's true, although now we're getting to larger cache sizes I wonder where the benefits will diminish...
also, although we're in the SETI forum, the OP was for a 'BOINC' cruncher, and I'm not sure all the projects are so sensitive.

Still, I would rank the e4300 preferable for a true budget build, with the e6600 as preferable, budget permitting.

Fair enough.

---

Why not consider the e4300? (200/800FSB, 2mb, C2D, 1.8ghz)

Put it with a mobo that supports 1066 FSB (eg, p5l-vm) and crank the fsb from default (200) to 266 (1066). Get yourself a 2.4ghz processor for about 1/2 the cost of the 6600, but with half the cache (you're still probably ahead). All reports indicate this is easily done on stock cooling, mostly without even a voltage bump.

OK so I took my own advice and bought this combo. The problem is the board does not have pci-e lock, and so tops out about 240fsb (120pci-e). (2.16ghz CPU)
The locks don't reset at 266 as far as I can tell.
So you need a pin mod to force 266 operation... or a more capable mATX board. If you've space, you're better off getting a good overclocking ATX (p965) board. (I needed mATX). Or, buying a better CPU to start with.. : ) But this is a budget build, so I'd still stick with the e4300, just with a better motherboard.

---

Crunching SETI@Home as a member of the Whirlpool BOINC Teams

Or, buying a better CPU to start with.. : )

I am not going to say: I told you so. :-)

---