1 GHz to 3 GHz

[Guest ExtremeFusion]

Yeah I got an older one Northwood socket 478..

Yes, idle temp for this processor is worst at 40 C.. but I can see that it can handle temp between 50 - 60 C..

Darn it, I can't make it ro run at 2.8 Ghz.. now running it at 2.7 Ghz..

At 2.8 it fails Prime95 torture test

[coknuck]

Mine runs real cool with this Fan & Heatsink.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835186134

[Guest ExtremeFusion]

Darn it, I can't push my 2.4 to 3.2..

BUS:RAM Ratio is locked..

Mine runs on HSF of a Celeron Processor..

[RTB]

I put faith in the fact that if intel sells a cpu rated at e.s then that is the speed they will guarantee it to run properly at.

anything beyond that puts it into a state that might work, but fails to meet intels criteria for everyday operation.

I also put faith in the fact that if a cpu will run at a certain speed reliably intel will not rate it at a lower speed, because thatwould cost them money.

as for your example of the p4d, it just shows what I said. you might be able to run a cpu far beyond specs but in your example that would mean more than doubling the thermal load. and that would require some robust cooling to prevent frying the cpu.

Though, those were just the P4s. (Did I mention one ran at 8.2 Ghz, using liquid nitrogen?)

Increasing CPU speed results in a linear increase in wattage required. Increasing voltage increases it exponentially.

And I'm afraid your faith in not setting them at higher speeds if they are capable of it... is wrong. In the case of core 2 Duo and Athlons to some extent too, the yields are good enough that too many CPUs end up at the high bin, leaving too few for the cheaper lower bins, which are in fact sold the most. Phenom I'm not too sure about, it's a really really complex CPU, and yields can't be good for it.

and I am jusr cautioning as I would caution someone that told me he was looking to install a large turbo kit on some compact riceburner. yes, it can be done. but it will decrease engine life and heavily stress the rest of the car. it is a tradeoff.

If you can put the OCed CPU to good use, then why not?

[resopalrabotnick]

granted, as yields for the high speeds increase some may end up downgraded... but you have no way of knowing which ones... so you have to go by what the mfr says.

[Guest ExtremeFusion]

I can't manage to make my CPU to run faster than 2.6 anymore..

So I started fiddling with my low end graphic card Nvidia Geforce FX5500

I run 3DMarkSE 2001 on it at its stock clock and speed it gives a result of 5552

Then I overclock its Core and Memory and 3dMarkSE 2001 gave me a score of 6782

Thus giving me 22% increase in performance..

My question is should I always use this kind of OC in my card, say use this setting at start up?

And how do I know that my card is still running within the safe margin for operating temperature?

I see there is no GPU Core Temp and Memory Temp sensor for FX5500..

Am I running safe because at stock the card is running @ Core 270 and Memory 332

Then I OC'ed it to Core 340 and Memory 410

[Blako]

On my 6800gt there is 2D clocks and 3D clocks.  This allows for gaming and nongaming setups such as underclocking on desktop and boosing both the fequencies and fan in 3D.  My 8600gt doesn't have that ability and I would of been forced to have the card run at one and only one fequency if not for finding this guide.  By creating profiles with Rivatuner I can save my stock and OC settings and access them with a simple right click.

Um if there is no temp sensor its    your best guess.  I would suggest "ATI tool", its a small overclocking program with built in artifact testing.  If your gpu's overclock can pass the test for 15minutes and not blow-up, its stable as a rock.

RivaTuner 2.0 fan speed & Overclock Guide

3DMark01 result search with P4 and FX5500

[mudmanc4]

.  If your gpu's overclock can pass the test for 15minutes and not blow-up, its stable as a rock.

Now thats a test I'm gonna jump on to take 

[resopalrabotnick]

just so we're clear... if the card fails the gpu releases the magic blue smoke?

[coknuck]

just so we're clear... if the card fails the gpu releases the magic blue smoke?

Yep! It passes gas! 

[Guest kamil234]

also, its a little known fact if you capture the "magic gas" released by the card and infuse it with your gas in the car, you will get 275 MPG.

[coknuck]

also, its a little known fact if you capture the "magic gas" released by the card and infuse it with your gas in the car, you will get 275 MPG.

So in a motorcycle it would go 300+?

[Guest kamil234]

So in a motorcycle it would go 300+?

i never thought about it, it's worth a try

[Guest ExtremeFusion]

Some "magic gas" huh 

I just wonder why RivaTuner let me have an OC of 340 and 410.. and when i test it about 3 times in 3Dmark SE

it performs just fine without lag and artifacts..

Then I run the same settings again, the following day.. RivaTuner refuse it.. says "the clock frequencies are too high.. blah blah.."

and when I finally made RivaTuner accept the 340 and 410 OCs, and I run the setup in 3DMarkSE.. kaboom.. it artifacts and lags.. 

@Blako

Would it matter if the Mobo just support 4x AGP, that's why I'm having score of 6782?

The Graphic Card CAN and will run in 8x AGP, but since the mobo only supports 4x, the card runs at 4x..

[coknuck]

4X will work on a 8X board but not the other way around!

[Guest ExtremeFusion]

4X will work on a 8X board but not the other way around!

Yes, I knew that! hehe

[Blako]

I read that the 6800gt (near top of the line) 8x agp scored within 3% of the 6800gt 4x agp.  Here, PCI Express 2.0 Graphics Cards Tested, shows that the $600 9800GX2 scores the same on 3Dmark06 with x16 lanes as it does with x4 lanes.  With only a single lane the 3DMark result drops by 67%!  If my estimates are correc...close, then 3DMark06 used 740MByte/sec.  All this to say, "I don't think agp 8x is that much better then 4x, especially with your rather old card.  I could be wrong, hard to believe isn't it.  Remember theres a lot of marketing ploy out there."

AGP 1x is 264 Mbytes/sec.      PCIe 1.1 1x is 250MByte/sec         PCIe 2.0 1x is 500MByte/sec 

AGP 2x is 528 Mbytes/sec.      PCIe 1.1 4x is 1GByte/sec             PCIe 2.0 4x is 2GByte/sec

AGP 4x is 1 GByte/sec.           PCIe 1.1 8x is 2GByte/sec          PCIe 2.0 8x is 4GByte/sec

AGP 8x is 2 GBytes/sec        PCIe 1.1 16x is 4GByte/sec           PCIe 2.0 16x is 8GByte/sec

Many cards have built in throttling such that if temps go to high the card with underclock itself to prevent damage.  If your overclock leads to lower results that might be happening, but you don't have a temp sensor to know if thats the case! lol 

[resopalrabotnick]

head over to the alienware site for some nasty overclocking.

for their top of the line rig they take a core 2 extreme specced at 3.2 GHz. they slap a watercooler on that badboy and are in cahoots with intel to deliver them cpus that are above average and then run the 3.2 at 4GHz. 

[RTB]

head over to the alienware site for some nasty overclocking.

for their top of the line rig they take a core 2 extreme specced at 3.2 GHz. they slap a watercooler on that badboy and are in cahoots with intel to deliver them cpus that are above average and then run the 3.2 at 4GHz. 

Actually, that's Alienware. In other words, the OC is nothing special. Unless you get a real poor sample, any CPU with that kinda multi (extreme ones have an unlocked multi even) can reach 4 Ghz without increasing the FSB too much. The only thing holding 45nm C2D and C2Q back is FSB really.

[Guest kamil234]

Actually, that's Alienware. In other words, the OC is nothing special. Unless you get a real poor sample, any CPU with that kinda multi (extreme ones have an unlocked multi even) can reach 4 GHz without increasing the FSB too much. The only thing holding 45nm C2D and C2Q back is FSB really.

the 45nm procs. can't have as much core voltage as the 65nm ones but they disperse less heat, so with proper cooling you might accually get a better oc from a 65nm proc than 45nm, but it just depends on what revision and stuff you get.

[RTB]

the 45nm procs. can't have as much core voltage as the 65nm ones but they disperse less heat, so with proper cooling you might accually get a better oc from a 65nm proc than 45nm, but it just depends on what revision and stuff you get.

Tell that to the OCers with LN2, they'll shove in as much voltage as they want to reach a world record

45nm has shorter distances within the chip, thus is theoretically capable of clocking faster.