Zophar's Message Domain

Go Back   Zophar's Message Domain > General Chat > Talk of the Town

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-08-2008, 05:43 PM   #1
symbolic X
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Who's into overclocking?!

The one thing I hate about overclocking would depend on the computers that was bought from a major retail outlet and/or a major company brand. Such companies like HP and Dell would actually lock several aspects of a computer's BIOS to prevent extreme configurations and unbearable rates.

And then some smart programmers would say that they don't have to worry about configuring things that were disabled in the BIOS. All they had to do was write something that would at least raise the FSB and that's the only thing that got me interested in overclocking my Compaq notebook - I'm looking to get me a more customizable one in the future. For the time being, though, what I did get allowed me to go from 1.99 GHz (normal) to 2.14 GHz - 150 more megahertz is faster but not too bad.

Finally, most believe that buying all the scrap hardware (piece by piece) to build their own desktop/notebook would make BIOS customization the easiest in which I somehow agree.

I know that overclocking can really be a backstab if it's not taken care of correctly, but what do you all believe?

Last edited by symbolic X; 10-09-2008 at 12:01 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2008, 02:39 AM   #2
The 9th Sage
Senior Member
 
The 9th Sage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NY State in the US
Posts: 17,439
Default

Well, if I had a computer that was good with overclocking, I'd probably do it. Gotta make sure the system won't heat up too much though first.
__________________
Just can't wait to bomb some Dodongos.
---
http://www.xanga.com/zeldadd

Twitter
The 9th Sage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2008, 06:43 AM   #3
Sliver-X
Regular Member
 
Sliver-X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 69
Default

I've ran my 1.8GHz Core 2 Duo E4300 at 2.4GHz for over a year now: Cores are "cold" even with the stock Intel heatsink/fan that came in the CPU box, and 600MHz is a hell of a difference when talking about the Core 2 architecture (For example, underclocked to 900MHz, this CPU slightly outclasses a 2.8GHz Prescott Pentium 4 and an Athlon 64 3200+).

This CPU can push 3GHz easily, but the chipset my motherboard uses (945) basically caps at 2.4GHz. I knew this when I bought it because the price was right, but if you're interested in overclocking it really helps to research the MB you decide to go with in your system.

As mentioned before, big box OEMs like Dell typically neuter their BIOS options to where you can't do much, if anything, with the FSB or voltages. Rolling your own machine is definitely the way to do if you're wanting to overclock.

Last edited by Sliver-X; 10-11-2008 at 06:48 AM.
Sliver-X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2008, 06:05 AM   #4
Lillymon
Senior Member
 
Lillymon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 2,379
Default

I've decided not to risk it myself. I've got a Core 2 Duo E6750 running at the stock 2.67Ghz here. I'll gladly sacrifice some speed to get more lifespan out of this PC.
__________________
Amelia Explains It All - Eventually. Probably.
Lillymon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2008, 11:32 PM   #5
Shadow
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 108
Default

I don't think overclocking is really necessary... speed is rising so fast an prices are falling. The current speed is just... low. All chip companies already have far more powerful technologies ready for production. But it's not clever to release them at once. They stretch lifecycles to gain more profit.
Shadow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2009, 11:35 PM   #6
toasterhed
Regular Member
 
toasterhed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 89
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow View Post
I don't think overclocking is really necessary... speed is rising so fast an prices are falling. The current speed is just... low. All chip companies already have far more powerful technologies ready for production. But it's not clever to release them at once. They stretch lifecycles to gain more profit.
Speaking of which, I spoke with a friend of mine about overclocking and such and we got onto this topic. Not to stray too far but if I'm not badly mistaken he said that although they are coming out with some very fast machines these days that eventually what's happening is there is going to be some limit. Then it becomes a numbers game. He said basically there is too much hype and not enough to back it up. Not to mention that some machines are so powerful that most people will never use that much and it's just a waste.

My computer isn't not bad considering it's almost 2 years old. It was awesome when it came out.

I thought of overclocking it but I have one crappy stock fan and one that is situated in the front (that also is situated to keep the processor cool? that's what it looks like) which also says Dell on it but it's much nicer than the one in the back. Are these standard now? It blows out cool air from the front? I tried to call them to find out what type but the lines were all busy. lol, figures. Sorry I'm not sure what terminology to use or what kind of fans they are. At any rate, I decided not to simply because if I throw some more RAM in it, I could probably get by another year without having to buy a new system. Which I won't be doing from dell ever...

So that brings me to a good question, should people whom aren't experienced with the hardware settings (I'm more of a software person myself) not mess with it? My assumption is yes. But I figured I would throw it out there.

I'm running an AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4200+ @ 2.20Ghz

Probably no need to yet? Especially if in a year, year and half I'll be looking for a better system anyhow. It sucks to upgrade Dell computers AND I have a slim line which makes it even more of a pain.

There is one more thing, since it has 2 cores and 2 logical processors, do they each run at that speed or is that the combined speed of the entire processor? So couldn't I technically overclock to like 4.40Ghz? Sorry for being clueless there. But I'm not sure how much more I could get out of it.

I'm pretty sure I'm wrong about that though and that it just allocates the work the processors are doing differently. Is that correct? Again, I'm not a hardware person.
__________________
"The creation of something new is not accomplished by the intellect but by the play instinct acting from inner necessity. The creative mind plays with the objects it loves." - Carl Jung


Last edited by toasterhed; 01-05-2009 at 11:42 PM.
toasterhed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2008, 03:22 AM   #7
Xeon3D
Senior Member
 
Xeon3D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Albufeira, PT
Posts: 261
Default

I used to OC a few years ago... now I got a decent PC (cough: read lack of time), so I don't do it anymore.

Here are some pics from my "golden days":

Click for Normal Size




Same A64 3200+ Winchester Core. (Running Win2003 Server)






C2D E4300 (A BEAST for OC) Almost 100% OC


Athlon 2500M+ with DFI NF2 Lanparty Rev. B

If you do, post pics
Also, what was the name of those DDR dimms that OC'ed like hell? BH5 wasn't it? (Before TCCD). If so, this Athlon XP was running a pair of BH5 DIMMS.
__________________

Those were the days...
Xeon3D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2009, 03:05 AM   #8
LiquidCh@os
Junior Member
 
LiquidCh@os's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Chillicothe, OH
Posts: 2
Default

Each core runs at your procs rated speed. Example, Im running a 2.83Ghz quad core overclocked to 3.5Ghz. The overall speed of my processor is 3.5, however its 4 processor cores running at 3.5, it is not however equal to 14Ghz. It's just multiple processors running the same speed on a single die to accomplish a common goal. Pentium 4 HT technology allowed 2 threads thru 1 core (2 Threads), Core 2 Duo allows 1 thread each thru 2 cores (2 Threads), Core 2 Quad is 1 thread each thru 4 cores (4 Threads), I7 is 2 Threads each thru 4 cores (8 Threads).

Im not much of an AMD person so cant say exactly how they do it offhand.
LiquidCh@os is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2009, 08:37 AM   #9
MyaMyaMya
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 14
Default

I have an older Athlon64, and I don't overclock. I'd rather not risk shortening its lifespan or compromising reliability, it's fast enough as-is(except when loading websites in Firefox that have obscene amounts of Javascript...), and I'm not made of money.
MyaMyaMya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2009, 02:49 PM   #10
Lillymon
Senior Member
 
Lillymon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 2,379
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MyaMyaMya View Post
it's fast enough as-is(except when loading websites in Firefox that have obscene amounts of Javascript...)
You're in luck there too actually. There's a JavaScript speed war going on between the browser manufacturers, with everyone bringing out newer and fancier optimizations in an effort to be the best. The guys at Apple seem to be keeping WebKit in the lead, but Presto (used in Opera) and Gecko (used in Firefox) are never far behind. The IE dev team are trying to get Trident up to scratch, but it seems hopeless really. The sooner they give in and use someone else's layout engine, the better.

The end result is that whichever browser you're with, you're likely to see further JavaScript speed improvements in the future.
__________________
Amelia Explains It All - Eventually. Probably.
Lillymon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:55 PM.

Contact Us - Zophar's Domain - Archive - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.