What's the point of overclocking?

"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" wrote in message
...

"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.

"mike3" wrote in message
ps.com...

Ed Medlin wrote:
"mike3" wrote in message
oups.com...
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

"mike3" wrote in message
oups.com...
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

"mike3" wrote in message
ups.com...

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

"mike3" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

"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" wrote in message
...

"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" wrote in message
...

"Ed Light" wrote in message
...

"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 Medlin wrote:
"mike3" wrote in message
ps.com...

Ed Medlin wrote:
"mike3" wrote in message
oups.com...
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...