What's the point of overclocking?

"Ed Light" <nobody.RemoveThis@nobody.there> 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
spam.RemoveThis@uce.gov
Thanks, robots.
 >> Stay informed about: What's the point of overclocking? 

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
> spam.DeleteThis@uce.gov
> Thanks, robots.
 >> Stay informed about: What's the point of overclocking? 

"mike3" <mike4ty4.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> 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
spam.DeleteThis@uce.gov
Thanks, robots.
 >> Stay informed about: What's the point of overclocking? 

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
 >> Stay informed about: What's the point of overclocking? 

"mike3" <mike4ty4.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1166687897.856467.193450@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.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
 >> Stay informed about: What's the point of overclocking? 

Ed Medlin wrote:
> "mike3" <mike4ty4.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1166687897.856467.193450@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.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...
 >> Stay informed about: What's the point of overclocking? 

Ed Light wrote:
> "mike3" <mike4ty4 DeleteThis @yahoo.com> 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
> spam DeleteThis @uce.gov
> Thanks, robots.
 >> Stay informed about: What's the point of overclocking? 

"mike3" <mike4ty4.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> 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
spam.TakeThisOut@uce.gov
Thanks, robots.
 >> Stay informed about: What's the point of overclocking? 

"mike3" <mike4ty4.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> 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
spam.RemoveThis@uce.gov
Thanks, robots.
 >> Stay informed about: What's the point of overclocking? 

"Ed Light" <nobody.DeleteThis@nobody.there> wrote in message
news:YYHih.25819$Rj.20251@newsfe19.lga...
>
> "mike3" <mike4ty4.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> 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
spam.DeleteThis@uce.gov
Thanks, robots.
 >> Stay informed about: What's the point of overclocking? 

"mike3" <mike4ty4 DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1166748924.140365.32030@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ed Medlin wrote:
>> "mike3" <mike4ty4 DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1166687897.856467.193450@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.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
 >> Stay informed about: What's the point of overclocking? 

"Ed Medlin" <ed DeleteThis @edmedlin.com> 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
spam DeleteThis @uce.gov
Thanks, robots.
 >> Stay informed about: What's the point of overclocking? 

"mike3" <mike4ty4 RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1166687897.856467.193450@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.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
 >> Stay informed about: What's the point of overclocking?