The Official OC (OverClocking) Thread!

abuzar, you retread. only j/king.

 

lol

It's funny because you didn't even speel retarded right!

 

The best way to get through to newcomers are through the experiences of past newcomers.

True, people are inherently lazy and since most threads go off topic it becomes quite a daunting task for them to review it all and make sense of it.

 

abuzar1,

Now doesn't that sound familiar? ROFLMSOAO! Extreme overclocking needs it's own thread! This is not the place for it! People come here with little or no experience to learn the basics! Upping the FSB and increasing the voltage is not the answer, as there's more to overclocking than that! Far more!

BTW, that was you I mentioned in my post to Sophocles! LOL!! You did notice I gave you credit for getting lucky, didn't you? Patience has it's place, and patience is what's needed to do a good and thorough job when building a computer and overclocking it! There is no Substitute! There's no other real way to learn.

I was more than a little annoyed the other day when someone wanted to build an AMD Phenom. My first thoughts were, hey, now we can see what someone can do with an AMD! Fat chance of that with all the experts here! This is not "The Official Intel OC Thread", it's the Official OC Thread!! I for one, would like to see someone build one just to see what it can do! I may even build one for myself, just to find out! A 9850 would be a reasonable choice and the price is decent enough! Very close to the Q6600 and the Q9300 in performance I might just build one just for fun! Very few here have any AMD experience at all, so how come all the "Expert" advice when it comes to the shortcomings of the AMDs? What is that advice based on? It can't be experience because no one here seems to own one! See what I'm getting at? Besides if all we do is support Intel and badmouth AMD, AMD will eventually go under and that doesn't bode well for any of us!

Best Regards,
Russ

 

Theone: I do appreciate your point - but if websites with all this top end hardware are hard pressed to make even 20% out of the things, as I've seen in most tests, it doesn't seem worth doing. I'm aware YMMV applies here - but think of all the ludicrous speeds sites usually pull off, things like 4.5Ghz E8400s and 4.2Ghz Q9450s. That's all well and good, but experience has shown us, those results are if anything a 'holy grail'. If the holy grail for a 2.5Ghz Phenom is 3Ghz, you can understand why we'd divert them away!
As interesting as it would be to have some 'real world' testing of a phenom - it's not fair for someone to spend all that money and get a slower PC out of it, just so we can see for ourselves.

 

Look Russ, that's one thing I don't agree on with you. The man comes over to the PC building thread expecting us to give advice that he may build the best computer for his money, why would I recommend a slower processor? Honeslty, Sam is right. When those review sites like Toms cant break 3Ghz with it, and I have personally done 3.6Ghz on a Q6600(and 3.2Ghz 24/7) AND the Intel CPUs are faster clock for clock, why would I recommend the AMD?

I'm not going to recommend something slower for the same money just to see how far it will overclock on some one elses money.

 

Given that I prefer how ATI operate as a company to nvidia, it's bad news for me too, but if saving a still giant international corporation by buying inferior products is the way to go, count me out.

there's the clincher. If you fancy trying out a Phenom, by all means - but it's a little unfair to let someone else be the guinea pig, especially when we're pretty sure how it's going to turn out.

I don't wish to labour this, but there are many good reasons why there's no need to support AMD's CPUs right now.

 

Those types of overclock are more a sport event ranther than an attempt to increase the value of their purchases. No one is successfully running a stable 4.5 GHz E8400 or 4.2 GHz Q9450 overclock, because it just isn't possible with those processors. Those overclocks are done just long enough to get them recorded and then believe they are tuned down to a stable setting. If those overclocks were left in place for any period of time (which I also doubt is even possible)hardware would begin failing (processor, memory, or motherboard) in a relatively short time. If experience has taught us anything it is not that they're the holy grail, but that they're inconstant. Phase change might be able to get an E8400 to 4.2 Ghz stable although I haven't heard of it happening yet, and even if it has happened the cost is prohibitively expensive. Expensive defeats the idea of overclocking to increase value.

 

well
my cousin has a q9450 with a ASUS X38 chipset (don't remember which one) and he overclocked his CPU to 3.2ghz and says thats the best the cpu can do.....
so yea, these websites SHOULD NOT be a basis for ppl's general overclocking...
-im1992

 

well
if AMD does go under, we will be screwed because then intel could price their CPUs w/e price they want and we would have to buy them at that price....or better yet, they will start manufacturing only Extreme Editions that have the performance of Celerons!
-im1992

 

He's not trying hard enough, it has been an absolute doddle for two people I know to get a Q9450 to 3.3Ghz, they both run that setting 24/7.

 

my cousin is using a crappy ASUS cooler (the silent square, i think)....so the temps under load for him are 68 and the thermal limit by intel is 71 so he is playing it safe...
btw, when you set the voltage of a cpu to AUTO and then overclock, does it automatically overvolt the CPU or does it run the CPU at default voltage?
thanks,
-im1992

 

It sets the voltage of the CPU to whatever it thinks is necessary. That may mean a big increase, it may mean hardly anything at all. You ought to check that really, as 45nm quad cores won't take kindly to temps like those at any significant voltage increase.

Both the people I know using 9450s are using good coolers though, it is important. One uses a Noctua NH-U12F and the other a Thermalright IFX-14.

 

so 68C is bad for a q9450?
-im1992

 

No, it will default to the pre-coded settings in the processor. That's usually not a problem with minor overclocks since the default vcore sttings are usually enough to get it to boost a fair little overclock. I've tested the E8400 at the default settings and I was able to go from 3.0 GHz to just past 3.4 GHz without any increase. To get it to overvolt you usually have to set it manually.

edited for typo

 

Auto voltage for my P35 and X38 boards ups the voltage for me Soph... Maybe Asus boards don't do that, I'd be surprised if they didn't though.

68C is not so good for a quad if it's the core temperature. if it's the CPU temp itself, it's genuine cause for concern.

 

I'm glad you're here Soph. you took the words right out of my mouth, although you used some more elaborate terms and descriptions.

 

Yes that is pretty bad especially if it is just CPU temperature and not core temperature. Tell him that he needs to get a new cooler fast and he should also check to see that the one that he has is seated properly (use some thermal paste).

 

well, 68c is the temp he sees in RealTemp(newer version of CoreTemp).... he uses Arctic Alumina thermal paste, is that stuff any good? he doesnt want to spend any more money, his parents wont let him so his only choice would be to either go back to stock speeds or make the best of what he has...
Is there going to be "permanent" damage to his CPU? Electromigration?
And can Intel tell if he tries to RMA?
-im1992

 

he better back it down untill he can get a better cpu hsf.