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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
What's the point of overclocking?
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? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What's the point of overclocking?
Overclocker type 1. Gets at or near the speed of the top chip while paying for the bottom chip. Chip doesn't burn up. Overclocker type 2. Goes for the absolute top speed the chip/motherboard/memory combination can give him. Generates alot of heat. May lose the chip. How is #1 possible? It's the same chip rated for different speeds. The chip that tested out at the factory as unable to run at the fastest speed at stock voltage becomes the slower chip. But the overclocker can increase the voltage a little bit on it and go as fast as the fastest chip, or nearly. #2 will be aiming to exceed the fastest chip's speed and may need exotic cooling. Example of #1: A Sempron 64 2800+ overclocked 50% will run like an Athlon 64 3500+. A very noticeable difference. Voltage increase, typically, would be up from 1.4v to 1.45v. Getting itchy to try it? -- Ed Light Bring the Troops Home: http://bringthemhomenow.org http://antiwar.com Send spam to the FTC at Thanks, robots. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
What's the point of overclocking?
"Ed Light" wrote A Sempron 64 2800+ overclocked 50% will run like an Athlon 64 3500+. A very noticeable difference. Voltage increase, typically, would be up from 1.4v to 1.45v. Note: Those are slightly different chips. The Sempron has less cache memory. Otherwise they are comparable. The overclocked Sempron with stock cooler will top out at 45 degrees centigrade under load, depending on good airflow through the case and no heat wave outside of it. That cpu is ok up to 60C, though it's not good to get close to it. -- Ed Light Bring the Troops Home: http://bringthemhomenow.org http://antiwar.com Send spam to the FTC at Thanks, robots. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
What's the point of overclocking?
mike3 wrote:
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? "Are a few extra frames/second on a game going to really make that much of a difference?" Yes, it does. I cranked my 2.8GHz Northwood to 3.2GHz, and now BF2 is smooth on my machine. There was a slight hesitation before the overclock was applied (and a rough translation of that, is my frame rate is below 30 FPS). The trick is, to do the tests, find out what factors affect the overclock, then crank back a little bit from your top overclock, to leave some margin for hot summer days. While I should be able to get 3.5GHz, I only managed 3.2GHz stable. You see, my machine is not a real gamer. All detail settings in the game are at their lowest level. My frame rate is pretty poor in fact. But the overclock made the difference. So if a person is not too greedy, yes, a little overclock can make a difference. And with only a small difference in operating temperature. There are people who compete for the highest overclock possible, who own $5000 phase change coolers. You don't see too many of them in USENET groups. If you want to learn about overclocking, in all its glory, go here. I always find their research and discoveries fascinating. http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/ (scroll down and look at...) Air Cooling Liquid Cooling T.E.C. Cooling Chilled Liquid Cooling Vapor Phase Change Cooling Dry Ice and Liquid Nitrogen Are there degradation mechanisms ? Yes. One mechanism is called electromigration. It is affected by heat, voltage, and frequency. My processor runs cool, so that part is not an issue. My voltage is also quite reasonable, and is not even near Vcore_max from the Intel datasheet. Frequency is also part of the electromigration effect. My frequency is below the max frequency for that family of processors (they are all based on the same die after all). The silicon designers design track width for the max expected frequencies and currents, so the design rules should be sufficient up to the highest shipping processor frequency. I'm not too worried about my modest overclock. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromigration But there are people who have observed overclocking failure. I've read of a couple cases with Athlon64, where the processor becomes unstable, the frequency must be reduced, and eventually the processor will not even run at stock speed any more. As the geometry of the processors gets smaller, I expect to see more reports like that. While you're over on xtremesystems, you can have a look and see if there are any reports like that for Conroe yet. There are also "death mechanisms". For example, if you had an FX55, set Vcore high, and left Vdimm at stock, it seemed the voltage difference could kill the processor outright. There is no suggestion in the AMD datasheet, of such a mechanism. There was another issue like that, with Northwood processors. If you took them up around Vcore_max, they'd go like a lightbulb (no response on your next attempt to boot). So, yes, there are some risks, and that is why you visit places like xtremesystems, because the people there have already sacrificed some processors, so they can learn about the limits. HTH, Paul |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
What's the point of overclocking?
Ed Light wrote: Overclocker type 1. Gets at or near the speed of the top chip while paying for the bottom chip. Chip doesn't burn up. Overclocker type 2. Goes for the absolute top speed the chip/motherboard/memory combination can give him. Generates alot of heat. May lose the chip. How is #1 possible? It's the same chip rated for different speeds. The chip that tested out at the factory as unable to run at the fastest speed at stock voltage becomes the slower chip. But the overclocker can increase the voltage a little bit on it and go as fast as the fastest chip, or nearly. #2 will be aiming to exceed the fastest chip's speed and may need exotic cooling. Example of #1: A Sempron 64 2800+ overclocked 50% will run like an Athlon 64 3500+. A very noticeable difference. Voltage increase, typically, would be up from 1.4v to 1.45v. Getting itchy to try it? No. Two reasons: 1. I can live with the speed I've got now, and 2. I don't want to risk the processor. But I'm curious about this increasingly common (and risky!) practice. Things are designed to run a certain way, and I prefer not to push the design of something unless I would really NEED to (like saving the Apollo 13 astronauts where they pushed the design of the LEM to turn it into a lifeboat.). A chip rated at X speed is designed to run at that speed, and no higher. (Going lower might not be so bad, but going higher is where one starts to gamble. That's what overclocking is -- gambling.) -- Ed Light Bring the Troops Home: http://bringthemhomenow.org http://antiwar.com Send spam to the FTC at Thanks, robots. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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? 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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
What's the point of overclocking?
"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. This http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103732 is the same chip as this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103030 and can easily go as fast. Ditto, this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115005 is the same chip ,except for less cache, as http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115002 and can easily go just as fast -- more than $300 worth of speed for free. If you can afford the fast chips without flinching, then there is no need to overclock. Otherwise there is no reason not to use the true potential of the chips, in a conservative fashion. -- Ed Light Bring the Troops Home: http://bringthemhomenow.org http://antiwar.com Send spam to the FTC at Thanks, robots. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
What's the point of overclocking?
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... |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
What's the point of overclocking?
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? This http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103732 is the same chip as this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103030 and can easily go as fast. Ditto, this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115005 is the same chip ,except for less cache, as http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115002 and can easily go just as fast -- more than $300 worth of speed for free. If you can afford the fast chips without flinching, then there is no need to overclock. Otherwise there is no reason not to use the true potential of the chips, in a conservative fashion. But if they are no different, why do they sell them as such? -- Ed Light Bring the Troops Home: http://bringthemhomenow.org http://antiwar.com Send spam to the FTC at Thanks, robots. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
What's the point of overclocking?
"mike3" wrote If you can afford the fast chips without flinching, then there is no need to overclock. Otherwise there is no reason not to use the true potential of the chips, in a conservative fashion. But if they are no different, why do they sell them as such? Capitalism. They charge more for a chip that's set to a faster speed on its little block, and less for one that's set to a slower speed. Once they have it mounted on the block and set for a certain speed, then the total package is different, and they have all the price ranges covered without having to actually make a bunch of different chips. If we had no capitalism and had democratic production and distribution of goods and services, then the chip would be enabled for its maximum comfortable speed in every instance. -- Ed Light Bring the Troops Home: http://bringthemhomenow.org http://antiwar.com Send spam to the FTC at Thanks, robots. |
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 |