The Official OC (OverClocking) Thread!

chart's shows top AMD and core i7 sales are rising
all others are dropping that's no suprize
also shows intel has about 70% of all sales

 

So i7 is at 10% of Intel's sales and rising. Seems about right.

Athlon XP (I didn't even know they still made those): 0.066*0.3 = 2%
Pentium D: 0.033*0.7 = 2.31%
Athlon 64: 0.11*0.3 = 3.3%
Celeron: 0.1*0.7 = 7%
Core i7: 0.102*0.7 = 7.14%
Phenom: 0.349*0.3 = 10.47%
Athlon X2: 0.475*0.3 = 14.25%
Core 2 Quad: 0.206*0.7 = 14.42%
Core 2 Duo: 0.42*0.7 = 29.4%


So basically, all the old dinosaurs comprise less than 15% of the market between them. All the Phenoms AMD sell, from the cheapest Tri-cores to the high end Phenom IIs, a wide market spectrum, cover only 47% more sales than i7 which is marketed solely as a top-end product. I think i7 is doing rather well so far.
Meanwhile Core 2 Quads which cover the spectrum that Phenoms do, and a little more on top, are ahead of the Phenoms by 38%.
In the Dual core race, the Core 2 Duos more than double the sale of the Phenoms.

 

You know...if I didn't know any better, I'd say that windows 7 were picky about OC'ing! It seems like I read something similar about Vista and OC'ing. Perhaps there's some merit there huh?
I cant seem to get anything above 3.5 stable in windows 7!!! I tried a voltage bump. I tried bumping the FSB instead of the multi, and it seemed more stable, without the voltage increase. In one instance, Black screen, in all other instances, BSOD. I guess tomorrow I can try increasing the RAM Voltage huh? But I dont think that would have anything to do with it. I had the voltage up to 1.425 before I became frustrated. I played with HT, FSB, multi. Perhaps a clear head in the morning Perhaps the CPU heard me speaking of the 1066 Ram ehh LOL!

 

Oman7,
I doubt that the memory voltage is a factor at the moment, depending on what it's clock speed is. That's another reason I like 1066 Ram in it. It runs at 1066, but you can use the next multi down 4.00 and you would have no worries about the memory voltage. I sure wouldn't bump the memory voltage more than 0.1v. I know that doesn't sound like very much, but DocTY told me a long time ago that I could raise it to 2.30v from a stock 2.10v, but he wouldn't recommend it! Considering Memory's his thing, and he does like to play with the memory settings, I'll take his advice, and I strongly suggest you do too!

Best Regards,
Russ

 

Vista and Win7 are a little more sensitive than XP, but I tend to find the sticking point is the Green bar. In XP you would usually get a crash if you were going to get one during the first 5 minutes of using the OS after you'd booted.

Russ: What do you mean about 1.4V from 1.2V for RAM? Only DDR3 uses such a low voltage, and even then I thought it started at at least 1.3-1.4.

 

Sam

I think he forgot to put a 2 where the first digit is. He probably means 2.2-2.4. I have my Corsair 1066 RAM hitting almost 1100 Mhz with 2.1V.

 

Makes sense, but even 2.2V is on the high side for DDR2. I usually use 2.15V, which is still 0.25V above default.

 

i ahev gone to 2.3v for months without a problem

 

It really depends on the 1066 DDR 2 RAM. I like to stick close to the Corsair recommendation of 2.1. I just checked and my current setting is 2.12V. The RAM guy however often recommends up to 2.2V which I think is pushing the envelope for longevity and setting it to 2.4V is early RAM suicide. Also at 2.12 I don't require the Dominator fan setup which gets in the way and can be irritating if one is inside their case a lot. The setup is pretty much the same for both the Q9650 and Q9550 systems.

 

Currently at 2.15V (enough for Asus to give me an orange LED on the board instead of green), miles away from needing the Dominator module, I probed the RAM at 39ºC.

 

Got my i7 965 a couple of days back...















-im1992

 

Then where are the benchmarks? LOL

 

And the temps?

 

i dont have anything except the CPU as of now...still thinking if i should even keep it? i mean, i can get the i7 920 for 300 bucks and that will probably be as good if not better than this i7 965

lol, for the price i can sell this for, i can make a complete nehalem computer(~$800usd) with an i7 920

what do you guys think?

-im1992

 

If you're willing to overclock by any significant amount, you should sell the 965 for a 920. The 965 retails for $1000 at Newegg, you should be able to sell it for at least $800, which as you say, turns a good i7 system into a great i7 system.

 

so will the i7 920 @ 3.2ghz perform the same as the i7 965 @ stock speed (3.2ghz)?

 

It won't perform identically, but it will be so close it does not justify anywhere near the extra expense (we're talking a small handful of percent at best here)

 

so it wont be worth the extra 500 bucks (thats the difference for me)?

since i can keep the i7 965 for 500 bucks
OR
sell the i7 965 for 800 and buy a i7 920 for 300...
so the net difference for me is 500 bucks...

thanks, im1992

 

Nowhere near it. 50 bucks, at the most 100 I'd keep it, but 500 you'd be mad. Word to the wise, try and find a D0 920, better for overclocking. I think they're SLBEJ.

<edited: SLBEJ, not SLB8J>

 

If hardware is the same and both the FSB and memory are running higher than default on the i7 920 then the 920 will actually be a bit faster. As a rule overclocked speeds are usually faster than an equivalent processor at stock speeds because of the moderate addition of a wider front side bus and increased memory speeds.