| 1 |
Grant wrote: |
| 2 |
>> An oc'ed cpu needs a lot more power&generates a lot more heat. Both can damage |
| 3 |
>> the CPU AND the mobo (too much power might fry a regulator, or cook a cap). |
| 4 |
>> Or it might overload the PSU - and then everything is possible. A damaged |
| 5 |
>> mobo or psu can take a lot of stuff with it to hell. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> I hope you learnt your lesson: Overclocking is evil |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I'll never overclock again. I'm realizing how much more important |
| 10 |
> reliability is compared to performance and low cost. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> - Grant |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
That's been my thoughts until recently. I just built a system using a |
| 15 |
Q9300 (45nm quad core) and decided to give OC a try. Bumped the clock |
| 16 |
from 333MHz to 400MHz causing the CPU freq to increase from 2.5MHz to |
| 17 |
3.0MHz. DDR2-800 memory not OC'ed. Core temps under 4 core 100% load |
| 18 |
using burnP5 only increased from 71C to 73C. This was with stock Intel |
| 19 |
heat sink/fan/thermal paste (just the way Intel wants it). I just |
| 20 |
ordered a XIGMATEK HDT-S1283 to lower these. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
IMO, it looks like the Intel 45nm processors have some easy OC headroom. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
YMMV. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Have fun, |
| 27 |
Roy |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-user@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives