× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



Hi Joe,

I take exception to your statement that "There's nothing about changing the bus frequency to a number greater than that printed on the chip's box that causes bad things to happen to the chip." Running chips at higher frequencies means they're going to generate more heat, and more heat is definitely detrimental to them, hence all the thermal sensors. How much you overclock and how good your fans and heat sinks are will go a long way towards determining if you're going to have a problem. Add one of those liquid cooling systems if you're going to bump it up a significant amount.

*Peter Dow* /
Dow Software Services, Inc.
909 793-9050
pdow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:pdow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> /


Joe Pluta wrote:
Buck wrote:
I've seen odd things happen by bumping just the frequency. A Pentium that would run Prime95 for 48 straight hours and blue screen crash when transferring video via Firewire. Set the clock back to nominal and no more crashes - only change to the system.

There's no guarantee that bumping the frequency will do odd stuff; you just need to test, and when you find a strange thing, dial it back as a diagnostic. That's easier to do on a home system than a server/work system...

However, there's also no guarantee that the exact same thing you described above wouldn't happen with a chip at its nominal frequency. There's nothing about changing the bus frequency to a number greater than that printed on the chip's box that causes bad things to happen to the chip. Yes, there is a threshhold at which every chip fails; but what that number is can only be determined through testing.

From what I've seen and read, memory is more likely to go casters up with a smaller overclock; in my case I was able to bump my CPU frequency more than 50% but my memory barely 12%, and that's seems to be in line with what others see.

Now, the firewire is an additional joker in the deck. Firewire by its nature is very timing dependent, and it may well be that your firewire port was less amenable to overclocking than your CPU. As I noted earlier, my graphics card wouldn't handle any overclocking whatsoever. As soon as I raised the system bus speed, the graphics card refused to play nice and forced the motherboard to cold reboot to factory speed settings. Not nice (and this is on a Gigabyte motherboard, a board designed for overclocking).

Whether it's easier or harder on a work system depends on your work system, but it seems to me that the more productive you are, the better, and we all know that a faster workstation makes Johnny a more productive boy.

Joe

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.