How many of you are 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?

[The 9th Sage]

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.

[Sliver-X]

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.

[Lillymon]

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.

[Shadow]

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.

[Xeon3D]

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.

[toasterhed]

Originally Posted by Shadow

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.

[LiquidCh@os]

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.

[MyaMyaMya]

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.

[Lillymon]

Originally Posted by MyaMyaMya

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.