Feels Like A Stupid Question

"Ed Medlin" ed@ edmedlin.com wrote in message
...
It is safer to lock the PCI Express bus to its normal value ie 100Mhz
(in
my
case) .
If it goes up too high you can get corruption writing to the harddisc ,
I
know I've been there!

len


Knowing me, I'll probably play with it anyway.
But I'm sure I'll still get further locking the thing.
I'll probably get lower ram, that's known to be good
overclocking momory, then test it by it's self first, if the MB
gives me the option, before I see how far the CPU goes.
Depending on the settings I had my P4's ram set at, the ram would
go unstable before the CPU.
One up with that though, if I remember. I was able to get DDR 333
up, and over DDR 400. I't a shame I don't have the setup anymore,
just to see if it would stay stable turning down the ram and trying to
run the CPU at 3434,, just for kicks.... No other reason.

:-)
Fievel.

The PCI-E bus doesn't have any effect on your OC. You can OC the GPU of
your
video card after you have your desired speeds at the CPU and memory. I
have
a Q6600 (2.4Ghz) running at 3.2Ghz very easily on an Asus Nvidia 680i SLI
board. I always lock the memory down to it's default speeds and overclock
the processor first. Then see what my memory will do. I stay pretty
conservative with my memory since it has much less impact on real-time
system speed than the processor. On most of today's MBs, the memory and
processor can be locked together or completely seperated so that
increasing
the speed on one does not effect the other. There are also ratios like
1:1,
2:1 and 3:1 etc that can be used if you like. I always keep them seperate
just to keep things easy and have better control. I think you are
confusing
something, since the PCI-E bus and memory are not interconnected. Memory
and
CPU, at least on most OC'ing friendly boards, are also seperate.


Ed



Thing is, I still like to play. Locking the PCI-E is pretty much the same as
locking
the AGP.. I got much further on the P4 keeping the AGP and PCI locked.
It didn't help performince back then, I wouldn't figure it would now either.

As for ram vs cpu, if the ram cant take the overclock your throwing at it,
it'll
be unstable. Running them matched with the FSB of the CPU seems to help a
lot. Even on this old thing.. Xeon 2.6Ghz
It's enough of a percentage to matter. I can run my ram higher then the CPU
can go,
but since it only helps this thing by about .4 to .7 of a FPS, it's not
worth the trouble.

Your right though, not saying your wrong.

Fievel.

So we've established that it's pretty much like the AGP days.
It don't help anything to overclock the bus on a PCI-E..


So what are we doing now, just sending messages for the hell of it?


Fievel.
"peter" wrote in message
news:WNogk.81111$kx.70167@pd7urf3no...
Like Len said it is safer to lock the PCI-E
I am using some lovely 400 Patriot memory and its running in sync with the
FSB..
I would check to see exactly what speed its running but that system is at
home and I am not..
The newer Intel/Nvidea chipsets are a little more complicated to OC..I
would
suggest doing a Google search
My mobo is a Gigabyte and was fairly easy to find instructions on OC this
specific board.

But like all OC ..its best done in stages and test in between for
stability.

peter

--
DISCLAIMER: If you find a posting or message from me
offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... ;-)



It is safer to lock the PCI Express bus to its normal value ie 100Mhz
(in
my
case) .
If it goes up too high you can get corruption writing to the harddisc ,
I
know I've been there!

len

"Don" wrote in message
...


"Fievel J Mousekewitz" wrote in message
. ..
But I'm asking anyway. How are dual and quad core CPU's
on Overclocking.
And does Intel overclock better, or AMD?

My Pentium 4 went a good and easy 500MHz before I even needed
to think about more vcore. And didn't need much extra to get it further
and still on stock cooling.
Please don't ask me about ambient temps, it's been too long since
I had my Pentium 4c 800.
Lol, I remember reading about CPU's being bussed at a little over 1Ghz
and had a laugh about it, since that overclockers had been doing so for
quite some time before it was even announced.


Denny Strausser Jr

Fievel Mousekewitz..

Raving Raichu

Katt.....



The Intel Core2 chips are very good overclockers, the new 45nm chips
overclock very well, I have a quad - a Q9450, which is a stock 2.6 ghz
chip, running solid at 3.40 ghz, on air.
I am sure I could get it to 3.60 ghz, but just don't want to push my core
temps any higher.

The dual core chips, are getting even better overclocking results.

My E8400 is running 3.8Ghz at completely stock voltages and settings and
with just the FSB set to 422. Amazing perfrromer.

"Augustus" wrote in message
news:bgugk.438$%b7.245@edtnps82...

"Don" wrote in message
...


"Fievel J Mousekewitz" wrote in message
. ..
But I'm asking anyway. How are dual and quad core CPU's
on Overclocking.
And does Intel overclock better, or AMD?

My Pentium 4 went a good and easy 500MHz before I even needed
to think about more vcore. And didn't need much extra to get it further
and still on stock cooling.
Please don't ask me about ambient temps, it's been too long since
I had my Pentium 4c 800.
Lol, I remember reading about CPU's being bussed at a little over 1Ghz
and had a laugh about it, since that overclockers had been doing so for
quite some time before it was even announced.


Denny Strausser Jr

Fievel Mousekewitz..

Raving Raichu

Katt.....



The Intel Core2 chips are very good overclockers, the new 45nm chips
overclock very well, I have a quad - a Q9450, which is a stock 2.6 ghz
chip, running solid at 3.40 ghz, on air.
I am sure I could get it to 3.60 ghz, but just don't want to push my
core
temps any higher.

The dual core chips, are getting even better overclocking results.

My E8400 is running 3.8Ghz at completely stock voltages and settings and
with just the FSB set to 422. Amazing perfrromer.


Sounds good to me..
I just have to wait till I have the money to do it.
I'll probably go with SCSI and SATA SAS for my hd's.
Would go SCSI SAS, but they cost more then twice what regular SCSI
costs.

Fievel.

"Fievel J Mousekewitz" wrote in message
...
Sounds good to me..
I just have to wait till I have the money to do it.
I'll probably go with SCSI and SATA SAS for my hd's.
Would go SCSI SAS, but they cost more then twice what regular SCSI
costs.

I didn't think anyone used SCSI as their internal HDs these days? A quick
look at Dabs shows the max capacity to be 300GB, and the price to vary
between £220 and £399 for that 300GB. Is it really worth it? I striped two
500GB SATA-II drives, and the speed is excellent.

JW

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:54:28 -0400, "Fievel J Mousekewitz"
wrote:

So we've established that it's pretty much like the AGP days.
It don't help anything to overclock the bus on a PCI-E..

Pretty much yeah, and also keep PCI slots at 33/66MHz. Some cards
tended to get flaky when they are running at non standard speed.
Decent mobo should have the option for separate PCI, PCI-e (or AGP)
overclocking and leave them locked at stock speed.

I just have to wait till I have the money to do it.
I'll probably go with SCSI and SATA SAS for my hd's.
Would go SCSI SAS, but they cost more then twice what regular SCSI
costs.

Fievel.

Go with good SATA II HDDs and save some money. Even today's large 7200rpm
drives are very fast. Not a lot of people use SCSI, other than servers,
because of the cost vs return in performance. I use WD SATA drives in a
couple of 1TB Raid-0 arrays for rendering large video files and they are
plenty fast.


Ed

"Impmon" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:54:28 -0400, "Fievel J Mousekewitz"
wrote:

So we've established that it's pretty much like the AGP days.
It don't help anything to overclock the bus on a PCI-E..

Pretty much yeah, and also keep PCI slots at 33/66MHz. Some cards
tended to get flaky when they are running at non standard speed.
Decent mobo should have the option for separate PCI, PCI-e (or AGP)
overclocking and leave them locked at stock speed.

This old thing lets me lock the AGP, for what ever it's worth.
Cant even overclock at all, once I add enough drives to the one onboard
control card, it locks me out. Unless I want to drop a drive.
Then I can only go as high as 165 MHz FSB.
It helps with speed a bit, but not totally necessary. Start a long video
encode job, then go to bed. I'll never miss the difference in speed
that way.

EEee! Went sidetrack...

Fievel...

"John Whitworth" wrote in message
...

"Fievel J Mousekewitz" wrote in message
...
Sounds good to me..
I just have to wait till I have the money to do it.
I'll probably go with SCSI and SATA SAS for my hd's.
Would go SCSI SAS, but they cost more then twice what regular SCSI
costs.

I didn't think anyone used SCSI as their internal HDs these days? A quick
look at Dabs shows the max capacity to be 300GB, and the price to vary
between £220 and £399 for that 300GB. Is it really worth it? I striped two
500GB SATA-II drives, and the speed is excellent.

JW

Sata for boot....
SCSI for it's ability to use many at once.
Also for Hot Swap install. Just have to get the right case for that.
Looks like I'm going back to the original plan, even though I was going to
try to change it. In width, twice the size of a normal tower case.
Just have to figure out where to still get one.
CPU? CPU's The newer Xoen's with LGA.
Overclock-able? Not sure if it'll matter anymore at those speeds.
I don't video game much, so it don't matter much.
Cores? Not sure, there's plenty of options with the newer line of Xeon.
I love servers, the're great for Photoshop, and other graphics in that way.
Also, server Apps. From a server, to a server. I'm keeping this dual Xeon,
though, I might just find a way to get it to a lower profile. Since it don't
have
onboard video, I cant put it in a 2U rack mount.
Sata sas seems to be a good choice then as well, because you need no special
cables for it. It uses the normal sata cables. Unlike the SCSI sas, which
uses
a different cable. Plus, they cost more then normal SCSI, that's the reason
for
wanting to go regular scsi.

The task of doing this, once I have the $$, will be one hell of a big task.
Not just the money, but putting it together. But I can do it.

Fievel.......