| 1 |
Am 23.01.2013 16:35, schrieb Nikos Chantziaras: |
| 2 |
> On 23/01/13 17:09, Nilesh Govindrajan wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Wednesday 23 January 2013 07:52:03 PM IST, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> [...] |
| 5 |
>>> In my experience, most of the time you can overclock. The issue is |
| 6 |
>>> with the user not knowing exactly how to do it. You need to |
| 7 |
>>> understand a few things and how they affect each other. It's not just |
| 8 |
>>> a knob you can turn. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> That pretty much applies to me. I don't know much about hardware stuff. |
| 11 |
>> Regarding your 1 Ghz overclock, you probably have good components in |
| 12 |
>> terms of RAM & SMPS. |
| 13 |
>> When I bought this rig in 2008, I knew nothing about good components, |
| 14 |
>> blindly trusted local vendor... also internet shopping wasn't advanced |
| 15 |
>> here. |
| 16 |
>> So pretty much substandard components. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> The part that's really important is the mainboard. RAM doesn't |
| 19 |
> matter. In my case, I had pretty basic 800MHz DDR2 RAM. Raising the |
| 20 |
> FSB would bring it above that, so I changed the DRAM ratio to 1:1, and |
| 21 |
> the RAM then ran at only 600Mhz. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> That was the starting point to rule out RAM problems. After that, I |
| 24 |
> raised FSB but kept the VCore constant until I hit the first |
| 25 |
> instabilities. When that happened, I raised VCore a bit. Rinse and |
| 26 |
> repeat, until the VCore was still below the maximum recommendation by |
| 27 |
> Intel. That happened at 3.4GHz (378MHz FSB * 9 CPU multiplier = |
| 28 |
> 3402MHz CPU clock.) The E6600 CPU I got was an average sample. |
| 29 |
> Others were running it at 3.6GHz (or even higher with water cooling.) |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> This was a process that took about 3 days to complete (needs a lot of |
| 32 |
> stability testing.) The good thing about those older CPUs was that |
| 33 |
> the performance boost I got by OCing wasn't just scaling linearly with |
| 34 |
> the CPU frequency. It was scaling *better* than that, because raising |
| 35 |
> the FSB also made the mainboard itself perform better and with lower |
| 36 |
> latencies. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
and here we are - the point where the suspension of disbelief ends. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
All you may have gained you threw away with the slower ram - and you are |
| 41 |
trying to tell us that your rig was faster? |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
You do know that with today's CPUs the CPU is not the bottleneck - the |
| 44 |
slow as molasses, no speed bump for 10 years ram is. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
(just look at the internal clock rate of dram chips - and you realize |
| 47 |
that ddr1-3 are pretty much the same crap). |
Archives