|
|
|
The Official OC (OverClocking) Thread!
|
|
|
NO Fanboy comments needed
|
|
Red_Maw
Senior Member
|
20. May 2009 @ 00:09 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by david94:
hi im new to overclocking but i have read all over the internet that if you overclock the cpu you are reducing its life because of heat and volatge ect. if i overclocked my new core i7 920 chip and kept the voltage the same with liquid cooling and the temperature is the same as if i didnt overclock it then will it last as long as if i didnt overclock it
thanks for any help :)
Even with water cooling any decent overclock will most likely make it run hotter then normal anyway. If you're worried about damaging the cpu or reducing it's life span you can always put off overclocking for a while; a i7 920 is a pretty fast cpu at stock and shouldn't have too much problems keeping up (for now).
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
20. May 2009 @ 09:27 |
Link to this message
|
Even if you didn't watercool it, it would last as long, provided you kept the voltage the same or similar (you can increase it a little bit) In fact, it would last longer if you didn't, as watercooling is a pain to set up and usualy leaks whether your fault or not.
|
|
Red_Maw
Senior Member
|
20. May 2009 @ 12:13 |
Link to this message
|
|
When done right [water cooling] shouldn't leak as long as it's maintained properly. Also not every one finds WC a pain to set up/design. When I was considering WC'ing I was having a lot of fun designing the loop(s) and was looking foreword to putting it all together.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
20. May 2009 @ 12:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
It's not difficult to design, but in practice, it's surprisingly problematic. For instance, even the best assembled system doesn't account for a faulty radiator, tubes, or pump that leak (I've seen all three, all with high grade components, and all with knowledgable system builders)
|
|
Red_Maw
Senior Member
|
20. May 2009 @ 12:56 |
Link to this message
|
|
True, but I'd consider that comparable to getting a faulty stick of ram; there isn't much you can do about it. I failed to mention that I put things like rads and pumps on the outside (I don't see the point of trying to cram stuff into the case) so if they leak it isn't a big deal. Tubing shouldn't ever be faulty (granted it isn't cheap junk), unless you pinch it or bend it too sharply there should never be problems with it.
That's just my opinion though. Chances are something will go wrong eventually but it's like that with everything. By the way I feel as if we've had this discussion on WC before.
|
Member
|
29. May 2009 @ 07:45 |
Link to this message
|
Is it worth me buying a new heatsink?
My Stock Athlon X2 6000+ heatsink is becoming increasingly clogged with dust and its pushing my temps up (I can't be arsed to clean it) if I bought a Zalman or something else for around £35 how fast would I be able to get it. I'm looking for a rough figure.
I've googled it but all I found is info on the old 95nm chips and mines a 65nm Brisbane.
I could put something funny here but I cant be arsed. Now GO AWAY! |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
29. May 2009 @ 08:09 |
Link to this message
|
Buy a Freezer 64 Pro, every bit as good as a £45 Zalman, but less than half the price.
|
Member
|
29. May 2009 @ 08:53 |
Link to this message
|
That's a right bargain and it isn't an absolute pain to fit like the Zalman :-)
I'm gonna order it.... When I have some money.... And have bought FUEL...
I could put something funny here but I cant be arsed. Now GO AWAY!
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
12. June 2009 @ 09:37 |
Link to this message
|
Also agreed with Sam on the Freezer 64 Pro. It's been the baseline upgrade cooler for AMDs for years. And, really, it shows no signs of losing that status. I know someone running a stock 940 BE just fine with one. Runs cool and everything.
As far as how high can you take the CPU... 3.2-3.3 seems about average for the Brisbane core X2s. Some have seen 3.4-3.5 with a good sample. I remember seeing one lucky guy hitting 3.6GHz 24/7 stable with a 5000+ BE. Really lucky to get that though. Mine wouldn't go past 3.25.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. June 2009 @ 09:38
|
Member
|
12. June 2009 @ 12:24 |
Link to this message
|
I remember seeing one lucky guy hitting 3.6GHz 24/7 stable with a 5000+ BE. Really lucky to get that though. Mine wouldn't go past 3.25.
My 5000+ be only went to about 3.25 on my old mobo, put it in my mates mobo to see if it was my mobo, and it hit 3.4 no worries with only 1.4v, where as on my mobo it takes 1.425v to get it stable at 3.2 with freezer pro running full whack, backed it down to 3.1 and doesnt go over 45ºc even after a whole night on cod 4, whats with the freezer pro on pwm. Its as much down to mobo chipset with the brisbanes i think. with luck he may reach 3.4ghz =)
FX8120 @ 4.5Ghz 1.3v,Asrock 970 extreme 3,8 gig crucial ballistix 1600 @ 1866, thermalright true spirit 140, 120gb Sandisk extreme ssd, 3TB second drive. Hd4830. Corsair Hx520 PSU.
|
Member
|
12. June 2009 @ 12:34 |
Link to this message
|
|
I had my 6000+ up to 3.32GHz (its 3.1GHz stock) on the stock heatsink on stock voltages and it was fine. But then it started to age and it didn't like it any more. I think swapping from XP to 7 may have been a factor also.
I could put something funny here but I cant be arsed. Now GO AWAY!
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
12. June 2009 @ 14:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
It will have been, Windows Vista & 7 are more sensitive to overclocks than XP.
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
12. June 2009 @ 15:16 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
It will have been, Windows Vista & 7 are more sensitive to overclocks than XP.
LOL! Took the words right out of my mouth :D I can get higher clocks on XP, than windows 7. 3.5ghz seems to be the sweet spot for now, on windows 7. Which is not too shabby. Im content. My encode times are excellent, my gaming is good, everything is very streamlined. No complaints here.
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
Senior Member
|
12. June 2009 @ 15:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
The normal OC settings of my Q9450@3.2 run fine with XP but hung forever at the opening screen at boot with win7RC
|
Member
|
12. June 2009 @ 19:11 |
Link to this message
|
|
How long did you use win7 before noticing any decrease in performance. Im using win7 64bit on my machine and have the Q9400 @ 3.6ghz and i havent had a problem at all as of yet. Been running for about a month id say like this.
Case=Antec Lanboy, Psu=Corsair HX620, Mobo=GA-X58A-UD5,Ram=Gskill 1600Mhz 3x2gigs,Cpu=I7 950 4Ghz,Cpu Cooler= EK 240 Water Kit,Gpu=HD6870x2,Eyefinity Set up,Ssd=Gskill Phoenix Pro 120gb
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
12. June 2009 @ 22:28 |
Link to this message
|
Both of my quad cores can do Vista and 7 just fine with their current OCs. The dual core can do XP and 7 fine but Vista is super sensitive and I have to back it down to 3.1 to stop the bluescreens.
Mind you this is with Orthos Load. The 7750 BE tests clean for 24 hours in XP and 7. But doing seemingly mundane tasks in Vista will bluescreen it pretty quickly.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. June 2009 @ 22:38
|
Member
|
12. June 2009 @ 22:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
I see. Ive never used vista. Only Xp pro and now win7. Im really enjoying win7 64bit. Its refreshing after being with xp for so long. Took a little get'n use to. But im comfortable with it now. Runs everything i had in xp either the same or better.
Case=Antec Lanboy, Psu=Corsair HX620, Mobo=GA-X58A-UD5,Ram=Gskill 1600Mhz 3x2gigs,Cpu=I7 950 4Ghz,Cpu Cooler= EK 240 Water Kit,Gpu=HD6870x2,Eyefinity Set up,Ssd=Gskill Phoenix Pro 120gb
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
12. June 2009 @ 22:43 |
Link to this message
|
Yeah Windows 7 is actually turning out a LOT nicer than I expected it to be. I never thought I'd say this but WAY TO GO MICROSOFT! You actually did something right for a change :D
Not to mention Windows 7 is WAY more forgiving on slower PCs than Vista. I have a friend running it quite decently on a 1GHz Pentium 3 with 384MB of RAM. It could barely boot Vista.
I'm still pretty happy with Windows XP SP3 32-bit as my main OS though. At this point it's nearly completely bug free, performs 100% consistently, and is very resource light. I will be getting Windows 7 x64 Ultimate the day it releases. But until then I 'm quite happy to spruce up XP a bit with some custom themes, programs and matched wallpapers. My desktop looks quite sleek and organized actually.
Also, for my games I use Rocket Dock to keep my icons hidden. I have about 40 games ATM in a hidden pop-down menu ready to go whenever I may get the urge. Most of them cracked so I don't need disks. Very convenient to just click an icon and have my game. Rocket Dock is also resource light. All sorts of cool icon effects and transparencies and whatnot and it's taking 10MB of RAM.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. June 2009 @ 23:11
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
12. June 2009 @ 23:48 |
Link to this message
|
|
My windows 7 experience has been pretty good. Extremely minimal problems. A volume issue with a game at times, but supposedly there is a fix for it. So far most things install without nag. Rivatuner gives me headaches, if I dont boot up without driver signing. Ah well. Im still pretty content with XP for now, until Windows 7 is released, and all the patches I require are released. I would love a touchscreen to go with it. THEN the OS would be VERY productive :D
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
12. June 2009 @ 23:53 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well those bugs are to be expected with practically a beta OS...
And LOL Rivatuner. If you're OCing your video card that could cause issues in itself. I don't generally recommend it. If you're using Rivatuner for fan speeds, well then bum luck. Try Nvidia nTune, it works well enough for both overclocking and fan speeds.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 13. June 2009 @ 00:32
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
13. June 2009 @ 01:09 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Estuansis:
Both of my quad cores can do Vista and 7 just fine with their current OCs. The dual core can do XP and 7 fine but Vista is super sensitive and I have to back it down to 3.1 to stop the bluescreens.
Mind you this is with Orthos Load. The 7750 BE tests clean for 24 hours in XP and 7. But doing seemingly mundane tasks in Vista will bluescreen it pretty quickly.
Estuansis,
I like the Codename you gave to the 7750-BE. The Little Dual That Could! You have that right! I just finished the largest DVD I have ever seen (7.8GB/2:52) with DVDRB/CCE, and it took 66 minutes total! Doesn't sound very good until you compare it to the 85 minutes total it took to do on my E6750! The 7750-BE certainly can! LOL!!
Russ
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
 |
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
13. June 2009 @ 01:36 |
Link to this message
|
Well it was certainly a surprising CPU for the money. I bought it expecting a refresh of Athlon 64 X2. It blew my mind when I found it decently outpacing my old E6600 at the same 3.2GHz. It's not quite as fast as my E6750 at 3.4GHz was but it gets pretty close for the most part. And apparently it IS faster in a few things. The thing games like a beast! It pushes that big, fat, factory OC'd 9800GTX+ no problem. Even if a lot Intels are much faster, AMD has always kept up quite well in gaming. Intels don't have the 3DNow!(+) instruction set.
For being a Phenom I dual core it's really impressive. Had it been released with the Phenom I quads it would have sold like hotcakes. Too bad it came so late in the game. But it certainly offered an interesting upgrade for my trusty old 5000+ BE! I didn't think the difference would be so huge! Maybe a Phenom II dual core is in line soon to replace it? I don't have unlimited funds but I like getting new hardware to play with :)
Also, Phenom architecture offers an interesting angle at OCing. The NB/HTT tweaks you showed me drastically improved the response of the entire system without ever leaving 3.2GHz!
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 13. June 2009 @ 01:43
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
13. June 2009 @ 02:36 |
Link to this message
|
|
85minutes on an E6750? Huh. My 5200 Athlon X 2 darn near meets that. And it has a lesser clock. I wonder what the price difference of the two were, when they were released.
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
AfterDawn Addict
|
13. June 2009 @ 05:50 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Estuansis:
Well it was certainly a surprising CPU for the money. I bought it expecting a refresh of Athlon 64 X2. It blew my mind when I found it decently outpacing my old E6600 at the same 3.2GHz. It's not quite as fast as my E6750 at 3.4GHz was but it gets pretty close for the most part. And apparently it IS faster in a few things. The thing games like a beast! It pushes that big, fat, factory OC'd 9800GTX+ no problem. Even if a lot Intels are much faster, AMD has always kept up quite well in gaming. Intels don't have the 3DNow!(+) instruction set.
For being a Phenom I dual core it's really impressive. Had it been released with the Phenom I quads it would have sold like hotcakes. Too bad it came so late in the game. But it certainly offered an interesting upgrade for my trusty old 5000+ BE! I didn't think the difference would be so huge! Maybe a Phenom II dual core is in line soon to replace it? I don't have unlimited funds but I like getting new hardware to play with :)
Also, Phenom architecture offers an interesting angle at OCing. The NB/HTT tweaks you showed me drastically improved the response of the entire system without ever leaving 3.2GHz!
Estuansis,
I think if they had done it back when the Phenom came out, the 7750-BE would have been a flop. It would have had the same problems that the quads experienced. I think it's a much better chip today than it would have been, even a year ago. The architecture of the Barcelona core has always been good, but unfortunately there were mistakes in the implementation of the architecture, that were cast in the silicone. Imagine the success that today's Phenom would have had, if it had been right from the start. With AMD's experience with designing and building a monolithic Quad, as opposed to the route Intel took with the Core 2 Quads, that's beginning to turn around. Remember also that not only did AMD build a true Quad, they were the first to get to 45nm. This may not seem important, but in the end it might be!
This is in no way a rant against Intel, but they did struggle to get to 45nm, and finally had to go to the Metal Gate transistors to accomplish it. Now we are all patiently waiting for the Metal Gate transistors for the Phenom and Phenom IIs, which should improve overclocking and scaling of the CPU, as well as consuming about 30% less power, not to mention that they are faster in operation than conventional transistors. It's not just the cores that draw power! Don't forget also, that there is still lots of room within the architecture for things to be improved in the future, while Intel has pretty much painted themselves in a corner as their C2Q and C2D architecture is about tapped out. There's just no room left to allow for much improvement without a new design. Consider too, that originally, the cost of making AMD's Quads was horrendous, as AMD chose a more expensive path than Intel. At first there were poor yields with the wafers, combined with all the other problems the Barcelona had, and it was a disaster! Today, that's an entirely different story. Wafer yields have come way up, and because there is no need to employ people just to connect the cores, their production costs are lower than Intel's!
Internally, as a company, AMD was no better off! That's what happens when people are told not to think for themselves. It stagnates the brain! It also almost put AMD under! Intel was the very opposite of that. Had there not been a handful people who thought for themselves, and had faith in the fact that they were going the right direction with the P-III architecture, even after they were ordered to stop working on it's development, there would have been no C2D as we know it today! Netburst architecture would never have cut it!
Here's where I break out my Crystal ball! I think that the AMD lines we be Regor, Phenom or Phenom II based, all made on three production lines as needed. As the wafers improve, the percentage of Quads with sub standard cores will decrease. I think they still will be used for Dual Cores, but I think the majority of the Dual Cores will be produced as Dual Cores, to meet demand. Same way with the triples to a degree. That's one of the reasons I am thinking about skipping the 550-BE altogether and get the 720-BE x3 Phenom II, as more of them will be Quads with a substandard core. That can only mean that the triples will be better binned than the duals, as the standards for the quads would be the highest, and three cores would have met or surpassed that standard. In all the tests I've seen the triple has shown some very strong points, and does better in most things than the x2 550 does and it games extremely well. The price difference at the moment is only $28, both with free shipping at the egg! I also don't think it will be obsolete as quickly as the duals! Let's face it, the Brisbane has had it's day, Long Live Regor! I'm sure there will be many more models to come!
My best guess is that eventually the Athlon x2s, will be Regor core. Probably Phenom x3 and x4s based on the Barcelona core and Phenom II x2, x3, and x4 based on the Deneb core. I still see the x2 as necessary, as it's an easy and inexpensive step up to better and more efficient architecture and AM3, once we see the appearance of the metal gate transistors! Whatever AMD does do, it's going to get interesting! I'll also say this. Ati is what saved AMD! I think that buying Ati was AMD's saving grace. Had it not happened, there would have been no one around to see and understand where the problems really were, and that was within the company itself and the way it did things. Far to many people listening to what other people think instead of using their own brains and do some thinking for themselves. You can't learn anything if other people do your thinking for you!
Best Regards,
Russ
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
13. June 2009 @ 07:04 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by omegaman7:
85minutes on an E6750? Huh. My 5200 Athlon X 2 darn near meets that. And it has a lesser clock. I wonder what the price difference of the two were, when they were released.
Oman7,
I do have to point out that I have never seen a more complex DVD in my life. This was a conversion of a 35mm film at 24fps to NTSC, which is 30 fps interlaced. That's all work that has to be addressed by the encode. My AMD was about 20% faster at encoding and about 50% faster for this rebuild. I don't know how many total frames there were, but the number was huge! I know that every time I looked up it was chewing on another 19,000 frames! It rebuilt the whole DVD in just under 6 minutes! I think I understand what effect raising the CPU NB and HT link frequencies has accomplished! The CPU doesn't have to wait as long for it's data, so the machine is faster, and the CPU is fed data at a faster rate thanks to the 2200MHz CPU NB frequency and a 2200MHz HT link. It adds up to a fatter memory bandwidth with a faster HT link delivering the information to the CPU. I think that's what makes the encode times so much faster. The Rebuild is stunning to watch! Compared to before, the blue line moves noticeably faster. By the time it reaches half way, you know it's flying! It also speeds up the VOB cleaning thing at the end of RI4M, before it starts DVD Shrink. Now if I could only figure out a way to stop DVD Shrink from even running, as I almost never use it! LOL!!
Oh! My 64x2 4800+ in Oxi averages about 5-7 minutes slower than the E6750 did when encoding with DVDRB/CCE! No OC on it at all!
Best Regards,
Russ
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
|
