If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
What's the point of overclocking?
"mike3" wrote But you seem to suggest that for "modest" overclocks there isn't as much risk as I might have thought, if it is done right... I would add that a top-of-the-line processor normally wouldn't have as much headroom as a bottom-of-the-line processor with the same chip on it. The bottom one could go way up to the top one's domain, but the top one may be near its limit -- then too, it may be capable of wonders in the faster-than-top-of-the-line territory that only some overclockers go into. -- Ed Light Bring the Troops Home: http://bringthemhomenow.org http://antiwar.com Send spam to the FTC at Thanks, robots. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
What's the point of overclocking?
"Ed Light" wrote in message ... "mike3" wrote But you seem to suggest that for "modest" overclocks there isn't as much risk as I might have thought, if it is done right... I would add that a top-of-the-line processor normally wouldn't have as much headroom as a bottom-of-the-line processor with the same chip on it. The bottom one could go way up to the top one's domain, but the top one may be near its limit -- then too, it may be capable of wonders in the faster-than-top-of-the-line territory that only some overclockers go into. Remember that the top-of-the-line chip is one that tested out to be able to do the top speed at stock voltage. Some of the chips relegated to live as slower models couldn't do the top speed at stock voltage, but can do it with a little more voltage. Some of them, though, could be extra capable-of-top-speed chips. You see people with the same model cpu getting different results. Some go way fast without adding any voltage, some have to add a little, and some a little more. You may not know that the pc has to prove its stability with an overnight or 24-hour torture test. The free prime95 is popular for this. It loads the pc up with calculations and will stop if it detects an error. Normally when you overclock the cpu, due to reasons you'll find if you get further into it, you inadvertantly overclock the motherboard bus and the memory too, so you have to readjust their settings to get them back down to their stable range (though overclocking memory is another facet). If you don't know that, you'll think the cpu pooped out when the memory goes awry. Some software overclocking utilities provided by motherboard manufacturers don't even take this into account, so it's not a good idea to use them. It seems logical that the memory could be damaged. BTW You have to seek out an appropriate motherboard to do a good job overclocking. -- Ed Light Bring the Troops Home: http://bringthemhomenow.org http://antiwar.com Send spam to the FTC at Thanks, robots. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
What's the point of overclocking?
"mike3" wrote in message ps.com... Ed Medlin wrote: "mike3" wrote in message oups.com... Hi. Why do people feel the need to overclock their hardware, anyway? I don't overclock, I settle for the speed the hardware I got is meant to run at. After all, overclocking means you have to spend _more_ money in the long run for a given speed, not less, since it shortens the lifespan and you have to buy replacements/upgrades more often. And what is the point of "small" overclocks like running a 3GHz chip at 3.1 or 3.2 GHz? Are a few extra frames/second on a game going to really make that much of a difference? I mean, you can't percieve those type of changes (100fps vs 110fps is not noticeable.). Is it more of a "prestige" thing to "wow" your friends? Why do people write an anti-overclocking post on an overclocking newsgroup? Trolling is what that is usually called. Actually we overclock because we can. The regulars that post here have been doing it for many years. I seriously doubt that any of them have actually lowered the lifespan of a processor by overclocking it. Novice overclockers come here to get information on how to do it safely and reliably. All the major manufacturers, even Intel now, have all those functions on the motherboards for overclocking safely, why not use them? The new Core 2 Duo from Intel will overclock almost 75% (some claim more). My present processor, a Prescott based EM64T is overclocked from 3.0ghz to 3.6ghz, a 20% increase and has been that way for 2yrs without a single problem. I notice a huge increase in video rendering speed. If you don't want to, don't do it. Nobody is going to force you to. The normal lifespan of a processor is far over it's useful lifespan. Are you still using the same processor you were using even 5-6yrs ago? I doubt it unless you are running a linux box. Ed I don't consider it trolling, since it's a curiosity question, and I'm curious if it really is worth the risk to overclock. But you seem to suggest that for "modest" overclocks there isn't as much risk as I might have thought, if it is done right... That is the entire reason we do it. Sorry about the 'Trolling" comment. I guess I just overreacted a bit.......:-). Overclocking is not just making it run faster, but also to do it and still have a very stable system........completely stable. This group has been around for probably over 10yrs. Overclocking today is easily done because almost all MBs have simple overclocking settings built right into them. If you decide you would like to give it a go, just fire some questions if you have any and I am sure many very knowledgeable folks would be glad to help you out. Like Ed L. says, there is usually a good bit of overhead for doing so with almost all processors, especially the lower to mid range ones. With today's systems, you can adjust the processor frequencies without raising anything else that would cause any major issues. In the "old" days, FSB/AGP speeds were locked in with the processor so that was a restriction we had to contend with that doesn't usually apply anymore although FSB speeds can be raised independently if you wish to do so. Right now, the Intel Core 2 Duos are the big thing for those who like to tinker with overclocking. Cheers. Ed |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
What's the point of overclocking?
"mike3" wrote in message oups.com... Hi. Why do people feel the need to overclock their hardware, anyway? I think everything has already been answered for you really...I just thought I'd add my take on the subject. 1 - it's fun, and feels like a bargain, even if you just overclock to the next speed up. I just bought a Core 2 Duo E6600, and have it running at the same speed as an X6800, which is selling for £425 more. And that is with stock cooling. 2 - This has already been mentioned - but I just wanted to put it another way. When the chips are manufactured, there are hundreds of silicon cores sitting on a large silicon wafer. For all intents and purposes, they could all end up being exactly the same. However, due to natural variations in quality and composition of the material, they do not all perform the same. When the manufacturer is marking up their processors, they know that they are only going to sell a small percentage of the small ones. So they just test a load of cores out, and check that they all run at, say, X6800 speeds. Once they've proven that enough of them work, they start to test for E6700, then E6600. But because they don't (as far as I know), test everything at X6800, then some of those cores become E6600s that just weren't tested at the higher speed. In other words, if you buy an E6600, you could well be buying something that is physically identical to the X6800, in all but the marking. What you DON'T get, of course, is the guarantee of it working at that speed. Cheers JW |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
What's the point of overclocking?
"mike3" wrote in message ups.com... Ed Light wrote: "mike3" wrote A chip rated at X speed is designed to run at that speed, and no higher. The chip is generally exactly the same one that is in the faster model of the same type and cache size, or exactly the same except for cache size. Of course you're not encouraged to know that by the manufacturer. It could be one that needs a tiny bit more voltage to go fast (they are all tested) or it could be they had more that could go fast than they needed for the top model(s), and some of those were used for the slower model. So then why do they sell them as X speed, anyway, if they are "exactly" the same? Because the market will not pay that amount for them. And they will therefore sit on the shelf, and never be bought. The manufacturers and retailers will lose more that way in the long run! Cheers JW |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
What's the point of overclocking?
"mike3" wrote in message oups.com... Hi. Why do people feel the need to overclock their hardware, anyway? I don't overclock, I settle for the speed the hardware I got is meant to run at. After all, overclocking means you have to spend _more_ money in the long run for a given speed, not less, since it shortens the lifespan and you have to buy replacements/upgrades more often. And what is the point of "small" overclocks like running a 3GHz chip at 3.1 or 3.2 GHz? About a year ago, I built a box with twin Raptors in RAID 0 and a then fairly fast AMD 4000+ SanDiego core at a stock clock of 2.4Ghz. With basically no mods except for a large Zalman, it clocks at 2.7Ghz and is the exact same thing as the FX-57, excepting the FX's CPU multiplier settings. So I got a $1000 processor for less than $380Cdn (prices at the time) The performance difference was and is considerably noticeable from stock. So that's why I do it. 100% stable for the last 12months, on 24/7 as well. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
What's the point of overclocking?
"Ed Medlin" wrote With today's systems, you can adjust the processor frequencies without raising anything else that would cause any major issues. Don't forget the memory and the bus, such as hypertransport, go up with the clock, and you can't raise the cpu multipliers on most cpus. If you have value memory you'd hit a wall just a little way up if you didn't change the ratios. -- Ed Light Bring the Troops Home: http://bringthemhomenow.org http://antiwar.com Send spam to the FTC at Thanks, robots. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
What's the point of overclocking?
"Ed Light" wrote in message ... "Ed Medlin" wrote With today's systems, you can adjust the processor frequencies without raising anything else that would cause any major issues. Don't forget the memory and the bus, such as hypertransport, go up with the clock, and you can't raise the cpu multipliers on most cpus. If you have value memory you'd hit a wall just a little way up if you didn't change the ratios. But only if your motherboard didn't allow the FSB and memory clock to be adjusted independently. I can raise my CPU FSB and memory FSB completely independently. JW |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
What's the point of overclocking?
"John Whitworth" wrote in message ... "Ed Light" wrote in message ... "Ed Medlin" wrote With today's systems, you can adjust the processor frequencies without raising anything else that would cause any major issues. Don't forget the memory and the bus, such as hypertransport, go up with the clock, and you can't raise the cpu multipliers on most cpus. If you have value memory you'd hit a wall just a little way up if you didn't change the ratios. But only if your motherboard didn't allow the FSB and memory clock to be adjusted independently. I can raise my CPU FSB and memory FSB completely independently. Wow, that's neat. I think it's pretty rare. Most boards change the memory ratio in relation to the fsb. So, to raise the fsb, you'd set the memory as a slower type. -- Ed Light Bring the Troops Home: http://bringthemhomenow.org http://antiwar.com Send spam to the FTC at Thanks, robots. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
What's the point of overclocking?
Ed Medlin wrote:
"mike3" wrote in message ps.com... Ed Medlin wrote: "mike3" wrote in message oups.com... Hi. Why do people feel the need to overclock their hardware, anyway? I don't overclock, I settle for the speed the hardware I got is meant to run at. After all, overclocking means you have to spend _more_ money in the long run for a given speed, not less, since it shortens the lifespan and you have to buy replacements/upgrades more often. And what is the point of "small" overclocks like running a 3GHz chip at 3.1 or 3.2 GHz? Are a few extra frames/second on a game going to really make that much of a difference? I mean, you can't percieve those type of changes (100fps vs 110fps is not noticeable.). Is it more of a "prestige" thing to "wow" your friends? Why do people write an anti-overclocking post on an overclocking newsgroup? Trolling is what that is usually called. Actually we overclock because we can. The regulars that post here have been doing it for many years. I seriously doubt that any of them have actually lowered the lifespan of a processor by overclocking it. Novice overclockers come here to get information on how to do it safely and reliably. All the major manufacturers, even Intel now, have all those functions on the motherboards for overclocking safely, why not use them? The new Core 2 Duo from Intel will overclock almost 75% (some claim more). My present processor, a Prescott based EM64T is overclocked from 3.0ghz to 3.6ghz, a 20% increase and has been that way for 2yrs without a single problem. I notice a huge increase in video rendering speed. If you don't want to, don't do it. Nobody is going to force you to. The normal lifespan of a processor is far over it's useful lifespan. Are you still using the same processor you were using even 5-6yrs ago? I doubt it unless you are running a linux box. Ed I don't consider it trolling, since it's a curiosity question, and I'm curious if it really is worth the risk to overclock. But you seem to suggest that for "modest" overclocks there isn't as much risk as I might have thought, if it is done right... That is the entire reason we do it. Sorry about the 'Trolling" comment. I guess I just overreacted a bit.......:-). Overclocking is not just making it run faster, but also to do it and still have a very stable system........completely stable. This group has been around for probably over 10yrs. Overclocking today is easily done because almost all MBs have simple overclocking settings built right into them. If you decide you would like to give it a go, just fire some questions if you have any and I am sure many very knowledgeable folks would be glad to help you out. Like Ed L. says, there is usually a good bit of overhead for doing so with almost all processors, especially the lower to mid range ones. With today's systems, you can adjust the processor frequencies without raising anything else that would cause any major issues. In the "old" days, FSB/AGP speeds were locked in with the processor so that was a restriction we had to contend with that doesn't usually apply anymore although FSB speeds can be raised independently if you wish to do so. Right now, the Intel Core 2 Duos are the big thing for those who like to tinker with overclocking. Cheers. Ed Well, I don't want to do it, sorry. It obviously is risky, since you're pushing the thing over it's designed speed, but I suppose though that if done right the overclock could work, however I'm not that big a gambler! The more you overclock, the higher the risk. I don't think a few "vanity" hertz would do much anyway ("vanity" level = "safe" level.). Not enough to be *really* useful, and any more would be pushing the envelope too much. I doubt that pushing it up from the speed I've got now (2.8 GHz) to 3.0 GHz (+200 MHz), what I call a "vanity" increase, would really do much, and anything more just doesn't feel safe to me. Like one said, it's best not to get greedy, and any "non-greedy" overclock does not seem like it would be worth all the fuss! If I want to play around with overclocking things, I'd better go and build myself a system that I wouldn't really care about if I lost it, ie. a pure "experiment bed". Remember, it takes only ONE mistake to nuke the chip, and if you don't watch the temp like a hawk... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Some questions on overclocking | Random Person | General | 3 | September 11th 05 01:54 AM |
At what point does 6800 GT not get bottle necked? | Kedrid | Nvidia Videocards | 5 | February 22nd 05 08:05 PM |
6800 Ultra overclocking - XFX? PNY? eVGA? BFG? | Marc Brown | Nvidia Videocards | 2 | September 29th 04 04:50 PM |
point to point with satellite | sknich | General Hardware | 2 | February 5th 04 04:44 AM |
Overclocking the P4 2.4C | Hans Nieser | Intel | 1 | October 3rd 03 04:10 PM |