1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

What's the point of overclocking?

Discussion in 'Overclocking' started by mike3, Dec 21, 2006.

  1. mike3

    mike3 Guest

    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?
    mike3, Dec 21, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. mike3

    Ed Light Guest

    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.
    Ed Light, Dec 21, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. mike3

    Ed Light Guest

    "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.
    Ed Light, Dec 21, 2006
    #3
  4. mike3

    Paul Guest

    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
    Paul, Dec 21, 2006
    #4
  5. mike3

    mike3 Guest

    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.
    mike3, Dec 21, 2006
    #5
  6. mike3

    Ed Medlin Guest

    "mike3" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
    Ed Medlin, Dec 21, 2006
    #6
  7. mike3

    Ed Light Guest

    "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/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103732
    is the same chip as this
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103030
    and can easily go as fast.

    Ditto, this
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819115005
    is the same chip ,except for less cache, as
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819115002
    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.
    Ed Light, Dec 21, 2006
    #7
  8. mike3

    mike3 Guest

    Ed Medlin wrote:
    > "mike3" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > 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...
    mike3, Dec 22, 2006
    #8
  9. mike3

    mike3 Guest

    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/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103732
    > is the same chip as this
    > http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103030
    > and can easily go as fast.
    >
    > Ditto, this
    > http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819115005
    > is the same chip ,except for less cache, as
    > http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819115002
    > 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.
    mike3, Dec 22, 2006
    #9
  10. mike3

    Ed Light Guest

    "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.
    Ed Light, Dec 22, 2006
    #10
  11. mike3

    Ed Light Guest

    "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.
    Ed Light, Dec 22, 2006
    #11
  12. mike3

    Ed Light Guest

    "Ed Light" <> wrote in message
    news:YYHih.25819$...
    >
    > "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.
    Ed Light, Dec 22, 2006
    #12
  13. mike3

    Ed Medlin Guest

    "mike3" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Ed Medlin wrote:
    >> "mike3" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> > 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
    Ed Medlin, Dec 22, 2006
    #13
  14. "mike3" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
    John Whitworth, Dec 22, 2006
    #14
  15. "mike3" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > 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
    John Whitworth, Dec 22, 2006
    #15
  16. mike3

    Augustus Guest

    "mike3" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
    Augustus, Dec 22, 2006
    #16
  17. mike3

    Ed Light Guest

    "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.
    Ed Light, Dec 22, 2006
    #17
  18. "Ed Light" <> wrote in message
    news:mbZih.26406$...
    >
    > "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
    John Whitworth, Dec 23, 2006
    #18
  19. mike3

    Ed Light Guest

    "John Whitworth" <> wrote in message
    news:458c75b7$0$31236$...
    >
    > "Ed Light" <> wrote in message
    > news:mbZih.26406$...
    >>
    >> "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.
    Ed Light, Dec 23, 2006
    #19
  20. mike3

    mike3 Guest

    Ed Medlin wrote:
    > "mike3" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >
    > > Ed Medlin wrote:
    > >> "mike3" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:...
    > >> > 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...
    mike3, Dec 23, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. riya
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,859
    Meindert Sprang
    Feb 24, 2006
  2. khan
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    347
    Bodo Rzany
    May 12, 2006
  3. sknich

    point to point with satellite

    sknich, Feb 2, 2004, in forum: Hardware
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    225
    jamotto
    Feb 5, 2004
  4. cman
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,046
    steve
    Mar 10, 2007
  5. John Babcock
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,163
    Stan Katz
    Mar 18, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page