The Official OC (OverClocking) Thread!

Well the computer keeps resetting itself after one hour of operation. The hard drives instantly turn off and I'm back at the bios and Windows says it recovered from a "fatal" error but no BSOD... yet. I'm starting to think it's my ram but this never happened to me before. Also when I close some programs, even though it looks like every thing's fine, it says "the programs has an error" or whatever it says in a dialog box to send to Microsoft. I wonder if that just means the CPU can't handle the overclock.

 

Abuzar: I can read it... lol To be honest, I don't think you'll get much further than 950mhz on that RAM. I think if you're going to get serious, it's time to get some PC8500.

rvinkebob: If it only happened after you started overclocking, then it's pretty much definite, your overclock isn't stable, time to drop it down a notch... Some overclocks will boot and run but not necessarily be stable enough to run 24 hours a day.
I've had good experience with Corsair RAM, but with 4 sticks in it doesn't overclock much at all, so that's worth bearing in mind.

 

Very good RAM with lots of headroom for its stock speed. You will see a lot of these hit over 1066 with some tweaking.

I have an old set of the Crucial Ballistics Tracers PC26400 (the 2x1g kit) and it was good RAM for DDR800. it did DDR1066 with ease but does get warm @ 2.32v. DDR1000 is a snap for this RAM at even 2.24v for me I was able to keep 4-4-4-12 @ 2.24v. Change out thin aluminum for copper sinks and they will last a bit longer. Mine got quite ewarm compared to the same OCZ at same spd and volts.

You should have better luck with the 2x512 then mine since it is less stress on the mobo to get more speed out of them. I had plenty of the non Tracers (yellow sinks) and they are great too. The PC26400 tightened to 3-3-3-8 with a nice 2.24v Some got more with lucky modules, but mine did good enough for me.

 

I think that calls for one of these...
http://www.performance-pcs.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=22833

 

Sam, I remember when you used to mock Ram coolers lol! What do you mean you can Read it?

NuckNFuts, I have TWO 1 GB sticks. Whatever, I think I'm happy with 3.6 right now. I can do 3.8, but I should probably get a better cooler before than anyway.

 

hey guys, I was directed here by Sam..

Basically (yes I have read through the thread) I just need some advice on OC'ing my CPU. It's a C2D E6750 2.66GHZ and it runs at about 23-28'C.

I want to get as much out of it as I can without going over 38 Celsius :/.

~C.

 

Just increase the FSB little by little until you get to a setting you are comfortable with.

For me that setting is 3.6 Ghz, although if I had the same CPU cooler as you I wouldn't mind doing 3.8.

 

I presume we are talking idle temp not full load, I would concentrate on what the max full load temp is when you finally settle on the setup you want.

 

Abuzar: You said your signature's text was hard to read. I can read it fine!
I may have mocked RAM coolers but of course a) I don't overclock my RAM, and b) I'm a growing fan of Thermalright and c) I was younger then. Not so long ago I thought Hypertransport was the same as Hyperthreading. Lol!

xchronox: 38C? Why there? I'd say 45C is a nice cutoff point at load for an overclocked CPU. You should try to avoid going over it, but there's no real reason to go under it, other than to then overclock further!

 

I just wish it was a little bigger, like Ray's sig. I want to get something like that. I spent enough money on this damn thing, I feel like showing it off well lol!

 

Hello Again gentlemen,

I have a question what are your feelings towards operating systems and overclocking. I have Xp pro and a infinite license i can use for all my computers. But what i want to know is there a difference between performance say using xp 64 or 32 vista 64 or 32 or linux. Now mind you im just starting to learn linux now. From what i can tell linux shouldn't be much of a resource hog like windows but im not a 100% sure yet still researching. Just want to get your thoughts on the matter.
Thank you in advance...

 

As a general rule Linux uses less resources than any version of windows, and XP certainly uses less resources than Vista, so I usually tell people to avoid Vista. As for 32/64 bit, don't know, I've never used a 64-bit OS.

 

I'm new to Linux as well, but when I rou Ubuntu on my machine it is much quicker than when using Windows.
Vista is slower than XP, 64 bit to 32 bit isn't worth the hassle imo

 

The only reason I would have for running a 64-bit OS right now is to play around with Gamecube emulation. That's it.

 

For what it does Ubuntu is a great Linux distro. Not much for the power user but it makes an excellent everyday use OS. I personally use XP Pro SP3, just because it does everything I need it to do. If you don't have a old PC then XP is a great OS to use. You really shouldn't have to worry about system resources with XP unless you have a 4 year old PC.

Vista has actually gotten a lot better with SP1. It turns out that reason it uses so much memory is that it preloads programs so they can start up faster.

 

A great shame really, because even though it preloads programs, they still start slower than on XP with the same hardware!

 

Well you can't expect them to load faster on a new OS. Honestly I think people complain about Vista too much. The people try to run Vista on 5 year old PCs and then complain because Vista isn't snappy. WTF?

 

I'm running Vista on an GAX38DQ6 with a Q6600 running at 3.6GHz, still waiting for another 2GB of 8500C5 Dominator to turn up to take it to 4GB, but the Dominator is running at 5-5-5-13 1066.
HDDs 2x74GB Raptors RAID0 powered by a Galaxy 1000W PSU.
Hardly a slouch of a machine 'rated 5.9' but its still slow compared to XP on most apps.
Still very usable, I like Vista except a few issues like USB driver issues, soundcard drivers stopping working, and the seemingly random deactivation and reactivation due to the slightest change.
If I had to choose Linux or Vista it would be Vista every time as its so easy to use, people do take that side of things for granted.
But what Linux does show is just how lazy MS have been with the writing of their software, as they rely on system power to make up for the poor application codes over use of resource.

 

Well Linux is pretty usable these days.

 

Alright, changed my FSB from 244 to 223 and am running at 2GHz CPU, 189MHz memory and 669MHz HT which is slow so I'm wondering if I can up that back to 800MHz in BIOS and get 869MHz stable. I guess this CPU just can't handle it...

Oh and with the OS deal, I use Ubuntu 7.10 almost as much as XP. To cope with programs, I installed WINE and have a considerable amount of Windows programs that work perfectly on Linux, games included.