1 |
On Mittwoch, 16. April 2008, Eric Martin wrote: |
2 |
> Roy Wright wrote: |
3 |
> | Grant wrote: |
4 |
> |>> An oc'ed cpu needs a lot more power&generates a lot more heat. Both |
5 |
> |
6 |
> can damage |
7 |
> |
8 |
> |>> the CPU AND the mobo (too much power might fry a regulator, or cook |
9 |
> |
10 |
> a cap). |
11 |
> |
12 |
> |>> Or it might overload the PSU - and then everything is possible. A |
13 |
> |
14 |
> damaged |
15 |
> |
16 |
> |>> mobo or psu can take a lot of stuff with it to hell. |
17 |
> |>> |
18 |
> |>> I hope you learnt your lesson: Overclocking is evil |
19 |
> |> |
20 |
> |> I'll never overclock again. I'm realizing how much more important |
21 |
> |> reliability is compared to performance and low cost. |
22 |
> |> |
23 |
> |> - Grant |
24 |
> | |
25 |
> | That's been my thoughts until recently. I just built a system using a |
26 |
> | Q9300 (45nm quad core) and decided to give OC a try. Bumped the clock |
27 |
> | from 333MHz to 400MHz causing the CPU freq to increase from 2.5MHz to |
28 |
> | 3.0MHz. DDR2-800 memory not OC'ed. Core temps under 4 core 100% load |
29 |
> | using burnP5 only increased from 71C to 73C. This was with stock Intel |
30 |
> | heat sink/fan/thermal paste (just the way Intel wants it). I just |
31 |
> | ordered a XIGMATEK HDT-S1283 to lower these. |
32 |
> | |
33 |
> | IMO, it looks like the Intel 45nm processors have some easy OC headroom. |
34 |
> | |
35 |
> | YMMV. |
36 |
> | |
37 |
> | Have fun, |
38 |
> | Roy |
39 |
> |
40 |
> This may be untrue, but from what I've see that's the way it goes |
41 |
> w/OC'ing; Intels have room to be overclocked and AMDs don't. The OP |
42 |
> overclocked an AMD processor which I've always heard is a bad idea. |
43 |
|
44 |
no, oc'ing is always a bad idea. And for the young ones: some years ago, |
45 |
overclocking klilled masses of P4 cpus thanks to electro migration. |
46 |
|
47 |
Don't oc. Its not worth the risks (silent data corruption, damage). |
48 |
-- |
49 |
gentoo-user@l.g.o mailing list |