Re: Feels Like A Stupid Question

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:47:18 -0400, "Fievel J Mousekewitz"
<> wrote:

>But I'm asking anyway. How are dual and quad core CPU's
>on Overclocking.
>And does Intel overclock better, or AMD?

With current CPU lineupo, it is Intel. Most AMD can do up to 3.2 to
3.5GHz with vcore adjust and decent cooling. Very few got past 3.5GHz
and often required extreme cooling solution like LN.

Intel OTOH many people have gotten better than 3.5GHz with little or
no change in vcore and some have easily reached 4GHz without resorting
to expensive cooling set or liquid nitrogen.

So go Intel if you want better overclocking. AMD is still good vs
Intel when you consider power use, Intel tended to draw more power
than AMD.

You realize that when you OC the mobo has a lot to do with it...
So yes generally an Intel Core2duo will OC better then a comparable AMD
chip..providing you have the
approbriate mobo to match up to it. I have my Core2 duo OC'd by about 50%
using a Nvidia 650 chipset MOBO and
an after market heatpipe cooler with a 120mm fan.
But in order to achieve that I did need to up voltages slightly...and it
took awhile to find the proper
combination of Voltage adjustments and proper airflow thru the case so the
test program did not
crash the system or overheat the chip

pk

--
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... ;-)


"Fievel J Mousekewitz" <> wrote in message
news. ..
> "Impmon" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:47:18 -0400, "Fievel J Mousekewitz"
>> <> wrote:
>>
>> >But I'm asking anyway. How are dual and quad core CPU's
>> >on Overclocking.
>> >And does Intel overclock better, or AMD?
>>
>> With current CPU lineupo, it is Intel. Most AMD can do up to 3.2 to
>> 3.5GHz with vcore adjust and decent cooling. Very few got past 3.5GHz
>> and often required extreme cooling solution like LN.
>>
>> Intel OTOH many people have gotten better than 3.5GHz with little or
>> no change in vcore and some have easily reached 4GHz without resorting
>> to expensive cooling set or liquid nitrogen.
>>
>> So go Intel if you want better overclocking. AMD is still good vs
>> Intel when you consider power use, Intel tended to draw more power
>> than AMD.
> Should've known Intel overclocks better.
>
> Fievel.
>
>

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
>>

>> 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
>

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.