oh icic... I got my phenom and is default 2200... then i overclock it to 2400 and orthos give me some erros every 4 to 5 minutes.... something about a misscalculation, when I raise the clock to 2600, windows start complaining about some driver getting corrupted and ask for a repair and such. What is more interesting is that starting the windows setup hangs the computer.
I dont understand this problem because I set up my memories down to 200 so they dont get exesive overclock and the bios is not marking any high temperature on the processor...
I was going to try to mess up with the memory channel skew timing... but was to tire of overclocking so I set up default and get into UT3... and some GW....
so no matter how much cooling the system get screw up very fast because of stress under extream overclocks???
yes no matter how much cooling you have, if you overclock it as much as vindcoth did, it will not last long. .3-.4 OCs are necessarily that bad, and i would recommend OCing just a little, and not 1.2 ghz. And you would need a pretty good cooling system to keep an OCed processor cool also.
so to answer your question, under extreme OCs you will definetly shortent he lifespan of your CPU, no matter how much cooling you have.
You're ignorance is beginning to annoy me. You don't understand processors at all. The only factors that limit a processors life span are HEAT and VOLTAGE. Heat is also a direct effect from raising Voltage.
If you go to Intels website http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLACR# You will find that the maximum Thermal Specification for a G0 Stepping (also known as SLACR) Intel Q6600 is 71C. Without proper cooling, it is possible to reach that with STOCK PC's.
You will also see that the maximum VID Voltage range is 1.5V. I'm running mine at 1.4v which is stable prime95 for 24 hours.
As long as your 2 factors of HEAT and VOLTAGE are under the processors maximum specifications, you will see very little life expectancy decrease. As a matter of fact if you ran at the maximum thermal specifications and it didn't reach its maximum life expectancy without any other factors like lightning or power surges causing the defect, that could very well be cause for a lawsuit now couldnt it?
I'm sorry but a direct increase in MHZ or GHZ without heat and voltage increases is NOT going to decrease life expectancy in any way. Thats all higher versions of these processors are anyway.
Do you think they have some sort of magical way of making their Extreme line of processors faster?
They're just regular processors with unlocked multipliers and increased voltages.
I've been building computers and overclocking for 9 years. Don't telll me how long something I put together is gonna last without first doing research like I have. Even if this processor only lasts 3 years thats more than I'm gonna need because I'm gonna be upgraded by then.
oh icic... I got my phenom and is default 2200... then i overclock it to 2400 and orthos give me some erros every 4 to 5 minutes.... something about a misscalculation, when I raise the clock to 2600, windows start complaining about some driver getting corrupted and ask for a repair and such. What is more interesting is that starting the windows setup hangs the computer. I dont understand this problem because I set up my memories down to 200 so they dont get exesive overclock and the bios is not marking any high temperature on the processor... I was going to try to mess up with the memory channel skew timing... but was to tire of overclocking so I set up default and get into UT3... and some GW.... Maybe today i try to overclock more....
Overclocking AMD processors is quite different than Intel right now because AMD processors have an Integrated Memory Controller. That means when you raise the processors speed, you also have to decrease your rams speed by the appropriate ratio to make sure ti doesn't get clocked too high. Example
You are at 200MHZ FSB x 11 Multiplier to reach 2200 MHZ or 2.2ghz (theoretical numbers, I'm not sure what phenoms are at)
You want to increase your processor speed, and you can do this by 1 of 2 ways. You can increase the multiplier or you can increase the FSB. Now the multiplier is locked at a maximum but can be reduced unless you have a Black Edition processor, in which the multiplier can be raised and you can get an overclock that way without having to raise your FSB directly.
But since you dont have a black edition you are gonna have to raise your FSB. So you raise it to 220MHZ x 11 to get 2420MHZ or 2.4 ghz
Your rams speed is gonna be raised by 20 MHZ. Say you are running DDR-2 800MHZ, since its DDR2 its double pumped so its actually 400MHZ. You raise speed to 420MHZ, your ram goes up to 840MHZ Double pumped. Now thats a minor overclock so that should be fine. But say you get to 900+ MHZ and your ram isnt rated for that, you're gonna have to do one of 2 things, lower your rams ratio to FSB, or increase your voltage. When you increase voltage you increase heat.
These are just theoretical speeds as I'm not sure what your processor really is running but there are so many different factors.
Don't let that thinks-he-knows-it-all tell you any different without first backing it up with facts. There are plenty of people out there way more knowledgeable than me in overclocking but he's not one.
oh icic... I got my phenom and is default 2200... then i overclock it to 2400 and orthos give me some erros every 4 to 5 minutes.... something about a misscalculation, when I raise the clock to 2600, windows start complaining about some driver getting corrupted and ask for a repair and such. What is more interesting is that starting the windows setup hangs the computer. I dont understand this problem because I set up my memories down to 200 so they dont get exesive overclock and the bios is not marking any high temperature on the processor... I was going to try to mess up with the memory channel skew timing... but was to tire of overclocking so I set up default and get into UT3... and some GW.... Maybe today i try to overclock more....
Overclocking AMD processors is quite different than Intel right now because AMD processors have an Integrated Memory Controller. That means when you raise the processors speed, you also have to decrease your rams speed by the appropriate ratio to make sure ti doesn't get clocked too high. Example
You are at 200MHZ FSB x 11 Multiplier to reach 2200 MHZ or 2.2ghz (theoretical numbers, I'm not sure what phenoms are at)
You want to increase your processor speed, and you can do this by 1 of 2 ways. You can increase the multiplier or you can increase the FSB. Now the multiplier is locked at a maximum but can be reduced unless you have a Black Edition processor, in which the multiplier can be raised and you can get an overclock that way without having to raise your FSB directly.
But since you dont have a black edition you are gonna have to raise your FSB. So you raise it to 220MHZ x 11 to get 2420MHZ or 2.4 ghz
Your rams speed is gonna be raised by 20 MHZ. Say you are running DDR-2 800MHZ, since its DDR2 its double pumped so its actually 400MHZ. You raise speed to 420MHZ, your ram goes up to 840MHZ Double pumped. Now thats a minor overclock so that should be fine. But say you get to 900+ MHZ and your ram isnt rated for that, you're gonna have to do one of 2 things, lower your rams ratio to FSB, or increase your voltage. When you increase voltage you increase heat.
These are just theoretical speeds as I'm not sure what your processor really is running but there are so many different factors.
Don't let that thinks-he-knows-it-all tell you any different without first backing it up with facts. There are plenty of people out there way more knowledgeable than me in overclocking but he's not one.
Kinda odd.. because i speed up the processor with 208x11= around 2277 but the memory get up to 414.. which still stable, what makes this strange is that memory takes twice the clock.
so no matter how much cooling the system get screw up very fast because of stress under extream overclocks???
yes no matter how much cooling you have, if you overclock it as much as vindcoth did, it will not last long. .3-.4 OCs are necessarily that bad, and i would recommend OCing just a little, and not 1.2 ghz. And you would need a pretty good cooling system to keep an OCed processor cool also.
so to answer your question, under extreme OCs you will definetly shortent he lifespan of your CPU, no matter how much cooling you have.
You're ignorance is beginning to annoy me. You don't understand processors at all. The only factors that limit a processors life span are HEAT and VOLTAGE. Heat is also a direct effect from raising Voltage.
If you go to Intels website http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLACR# You will find that the maximum Thermal Specification for a G0 Stepping (also known as SLACR) Intel Q6600 is 71C. Without proper cooling, it is possible to reach that with STOCK PC's.
You will also see that the maximum VID Voltage range is 1.5V. I'm running mine at 1.4v which is stable prime95 for 24 hours.
As long as your 2 factors of HEAT and VOLTAGE are under the processors maximum specifications, you will see very little life expectancy decrease. As a matter of fact if you ran at the maximum thermal specifications and it didn't reach its maximum life expectancy without any other factors like lightning or power surges causing the defect, that could very well be cause for a lawsuit now couldnt it?
I'm sorry but a direct increase in MHZ or GHZ without heat and voltage increases is NOT going to decrease life expectancy in any way. Thats all higher versions of these processors are anyway.
Do you think they have some sort of magical way of making their Extreme line of processors faster?
They're just regular processors with unlocked multipliers and increased voltages.
I've been building computers and overclocking for 9 years. Don't telll me how long something I put together is gonna last without first doing research like I have. Even if this processor only lasts 3 years thats more than I'm gonna need because I'm gonna be upgraded by then.
what do you need to increase a processor's speed? Voltage....... and like i said pushing anything passed its normal settings will cut down its life span, if it wouldnt why would they keep it down at 2.4gh when they can up it up to 3.6 like you? There is a reason why it is at 2.4ghz with the normal voltage. If you make it faster and give it more voltage your gonna have to change it earlier. You dont need to build computers for 9 years to understand this. And i was wrong about the temps i guess, the G0 model is really great as far as temps go, so i hear.
Playing: EVE Online Favorite MMOs: WoW, SWG Pre-cu, Lineage 2, UO, EQ, EVE online Looking forward to: Archeage, Kingdom Under Fire 2 KUF2's Official Website - http://www.kufii.com/ENG/ -
....... and like i said pushing anything passed its normal settings will cut down its life span, if it wouldnt why would they keep it down at 2.4gh when they can up it up to 3.6 like you?
Easy. If a 3.6GHz cpu cost too much for you to buy, how would they get your money? By keeping it at 2.4GHz instead of 3.6, they can now sell you a processor at a lower price (and lower performance) than the 3.6GHz. Why do you think processor companies have been so much against consumer overclocking from the very beginning? Because if everyone realized they could get the same performance from that 2.4 as they would from that 3.6, who would buy the 3.6?
When new processors come off the line, they are broken into different branding ( Celeron, Extreem,etc ) categories, and then underclocked, overclocked, etc. to be sold to different users for different prices. But they are all the same damn chip from the same line.
Some AMD processors used to be locked, until people realized you could cut the connecting bridge between two pins to unlock the core speed. AMD finally relented on trying so hard to block overclocking.
Intel sold thousands of the inferior Celeron chips to penny pincher computer users for discount prices. Why was a 2.4GHZ Celeron so much cheaper than a 2.4GHZ PIV? Why were the celerons so inferior to regular PIVs? Because they were factory under-clocked and then had their multipliers locked internally. Otherwise, they were the same damn chip.
And as long as you have the correct cooling, you can keep a processor overclocked indefinitely. You can make a 2.0GHZ cpu run at 5.0GHz if you want, as long as you have enough liquid nitrogen to keep the processor immersed.
....... and like i said pushing anything passed its normal settings will cut down its life span, if it wouldnt why would they keep it down at 2.4gh when they can up it up to 3.6 like you?
Easy. If a 3.6GHz cpu cost too much for you to buy, how would they get your money? By keeping it at 2.4GHz instead of 3.6, they can now sell you a processor at a lower price (and lower performance) than the 3.6GHz. Why do you think processor companies have been so much against consumer overclocking from the very beginning? Because if everyone realized they could get the same performance from that 2.4 as they would from that 3.6, who would buy the 3.6?
When new processors come off the line, they are broken into different branding ( Celeron, Extreem,etc ) categories, and then underclocked, overclocked, etc. to be sold to different users for different prices. But they are all the same damn chip from the same line.
Some AMD processors used to be locked, until people realized you could cut the connecting bridge between two pins to unlock the core speed. AMD finally relented on trying so hard to block overclocking.
Intel sold thousands of the inferior Celeron chips to penny pincher computer users for discount prices. Why was a 2.4GHZ Celeron so much cheaper than a 2.4GHZ PIV? Why were the celerons so inferior to regular PIVs? Because they were factory under-clocked and then had their multipliers locked internally. Otherwise, they were the same damn chip.
And as long as you have the correct cooling, you can keep a processor overclocked indefinitely. You can make a 2.0GHZ cpu run at 5.0GHz if you want, as long as you have enough liquid nitrogen to keep the processor immersed.
i stand corrected
Playing: EVE Online Favorite MMOs: WoW, SWG Pre-cu, Lineage 2, UO, EQ, EVE online Looking forward to: Archeage, Kingdom Under Fire 2 KUF2's Official Website - http://www.kufii.com/ENG/ -
so no matter how much cooling the system get screw up very fast because of stress under extream overclocks???
yes no matter how much cooling you have, if you overclock it as much as vindcoth did, it will not last long. .3-.4 OCs are necessarily that bad, and i would recommend OCing just a little, and not 1.2 ghz. And you would need a pretty good cooling system to keep an OCed processor cool also.
so to answer your question, under extreme OCs you will definetly shortent he lifespan of your CPU, no matter how much cooling you have.
You're ignorance is beginning to annoy me. You don't understand processors at all. The only factors that limit a processors life span are HEAT and VOLTAGE. Heat is also a direct effect from raising Voltage.
If you go to Intels website http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLACR# You will find that the maximum Thermal Specification for a G0 Stepping (also known as SLACR) Intel Q6600 is 71C. Without proper cooling, it is possible to reach that with STOCK PC's.
You will also see that the maximum VID Voltage range is 1.5V. I'm running mine at 1.4v which is stable prime95 for 24 hours.
As long as your 2 factors of HEAT and VOLTAGE are under the processors maximum specifications, you will see very little life expectancy decrease. As a matter of fact if you ran at the maximum thermal specifications and it didn't reach its maximum life expectancy without any other factors like lightning or power surges causing the defect, that could very well be cause for a lawsuit now couldnt it?
I'm sorry but a direct increase in MHZ or GHZ without heat and voltage increases is NOT going to decrease life expectancy in any way. Thats all higher versions of these processors are anyway.
Do you think they have some sort of magical way of making their Extreme line of processors faster?
They're just regular processors with unlocked multipliers and increased voltages.
I've been building computers and overclocking for 9 years. Don't telll me how long something I put together is gonna last without first doing research like I have. Even if this processor only lasts 3 years thats more than I'm gonna need because I'm gonna be upgraded by then.
what do you need to increase a processor's speed? Voltage....... and like i said pushing anything passed its normal settings will cut down its life span, if it wouldnt why would they keep it down at 2.4gh when they can up it up to 3.6 like you? There is a reason why it is at 2.4ghz with the normal voltage. If you make it faster and give it more voltage your gonna have to change it earlier. You dont need to build computers for 9 years to understand this. And i was wrong about the temps i guess, the G0 model is really great as far as temps go, so i hear.
you dont understand though, you dont need to increase voltage to get 3.0GHZ on this processor, thats still a 600MHZ overclock. You only need to increase voltage SLIGHTLY in order to get 3.4ghz and to get 3.6ghz you only need maybe 0.10 voltage more than stock. A .10 increase in voltage over stock is nothing compared to the 0.30 increase the processor can handle. You dont need 9 years of building computers to understand any of this but you do need to research, and thats what I've been doing for 9 years, and I have barely scratched the surface with this processor by not going into water cooling.
The reason they don't up it to 3.6ghz is.. well they do.
A 2.4ghz Q6600
A 2.6ghz Q6700
A 3.0ghz QX6850
all the same processors, the only difference is that intel loosens the multiplier.
Its smart to do this, you sell a processor for 200 dollars, then just up some settings, sell the same processor for a higher profit margin for 1000 dollars.
....... and like i said pushing anything passed its normal settings will cut down its life span, if it wouldnt why would they keep it down at 2.4gh when they can up it up to 3.6 like you?
Easy. If a 3.6GHz cpu cost too much for you to buy, how would they get your money? By keeping it at 2.4GHz instead of 3.6, they can now sell you a processor at a lower price (and lower performance) than the 3.6GHz. Why do you think processor companies have been so much against consumer overclocking from the very beginning? Because if everyone realized they could get the same performance from that 2.4 as they would from that 3.6, who would buy the 3.6?
When new processors come off the line, they are broken into different branding ( Celeron, Extreem,etc ) categories, and then underclocked, overclocked, etc. to be sold to different users for different prices. But they are all the same damn chip from the same line.
Some AMD processors used to be locked, until people realized you could cut the connecting bridge between two pins to unlock the core speed. AMD finally relented on trying so hard to block overclocking.
Intel sold thousands of the inferior Celeron chips to penny pincher computer users for discount prices. Why was a 2.4GHZ Celeron so much cheaper than a 2.4GHZ PIV? Why were the celerons so inferior to regular PIVs? Because they were factory under-clocked and then had their multipliers locked internally. Otherwise, they were the same damn chip.
And as long as you have the correct cooling, you can keep a processor overclocked indefinitely. You can make a 2.0GHZ cpu run at 5.0GHz if you want, as long as you have enough liquid nitrogen to keep the processor immersed.
Err yeah didnt read this explanation before I replied but yeah he pretty much said what I summed up .
ok, sry bout my earlier posts, and now i see the light. Did you OC your CPU in the BIOS settings or did you use outside software? And if you did use software, wich ones? I got vista so not much software is compatible yet, and my Asus Striker Extreme is supposedly supposed to OC very well.
Playing: EVE Online Favorite MMOs: WoW, SWG Pre-cu, Lineage 2, UO, EQ, EVE online Looking forward to: Archeage, Kingdom Under Fire 2 KUF2's Official Website - http://www.kufii.com/ENG/ -
ok, sry bout my earlier posts, and now i see the light. Did you OC your CPU in the BIOS settings or did you use outside software? And if you did use software, wich ones? I got vista so not much software is compatible yet, and my Asus Striker Extreme is supposedly supposed to OC very well.
I did it all in the bios. Software OC doesnt really work well besides on video cards.
Just a Question, thinking bout buying a new system found a site system build goes as such: core 2 extreem 9650 oc to 3.8ghz 800 watt xion supernova asus striker2 formula 780 mb 4gb corsair xm52 pc6400/800mhz ram (2) nvidia 9600 512mb oc (2) 150 gb WD raptor HD 20x dvd/cd r/wr (2) Z5500 5.1 speakers Killer K1 network card windows vista home premium 64 bit edition is this a decent deal at 3559.64 or no, suggestions of pros and or cons would be appreciated
Don't get the killer K1 network card unless its practically free, onboard gigabit ethernet is always just as good. It's not wortht he premium.
Also dont waste your money on extreme edition processors, look for the mid range processor to overclock and you're only gonna see about a 10% speed difference from a high end.
2 nvidia 9600's is pretty good but before the end of the month nvidia is releasing 9800GX2 which is definitely gonna be the speed champion until the 9800GTX comes out, it may even be faster than the GTX anyway.
Just a Question, thinking bout buying a new system found a site system build goes as such: core 2 extreem 9650 oc to 3.8ghz 800 watt xion supernova asus striker2 formula 780 mb 4gb corsair xm52 pc6400/800mhz ram (2) nvidia 9600 512mb oc (2) 150 gb WD raptor HD 20x dvd/cd r/wr (2) Z5500 5.1 speakers Killer K1 network card windows vista home premium 64 bit edition is this a decent deal at 3559.64 or no, suggestions of pros and or cons would be appreciated
My system specs are in my xfire profile. As far as over volt proc goes, its up to the mobo to decide the maximum voltage actually apply able. As long as you don't exceed max thermal spec(consumer threshold) 24/7 all is good and expect a long healthy lifespan. Overclock is limited to the chip's physical resistance to heat. All proc's real burnout and unsafe temps are obviously not available to the public.
Comments
oh icic... I got my phenom and is default 2200... then i overclock it to 2400 and orthos give me some erros every 4 to 5 minutes.... something about a misscalculation, when I raise the clock to 2600, windows start complaining about some driver getting corrupted and ask for a repair and such. What is more interesting is that starting the windows setup hangs the computer.
I dont understand this problem because I set up my memories down to 200 so they dont get exesive overclock and the bios is not marking any high temperature on the processor...
I was going to try to mess up with the memory channel skew timing... but was to tire of overclocking so I set up default and get into UT3... and some GW....
Maybe today i try to overclock more....
yes no matter how much cooling you have, if you overclock it as much as vindcoth did, it will not last long. .3-.4 OCs are necessarily that bad, and i would recommend OCing just a little, and not 1.2 ghz. And you would need a pretty good cooling system to keep an OCed processor cool also.
so to answer your question, under extreme OCs you will definetly shortent he lifespan of your CPU, no matter how much cooling you have.
You're ignorance is beginning to annoy me. You don't understand processors at all. The only factors that limit a processors life span are HEAT and VOLTAGE. Heat is also a direct effect from raising Voltage.
If you go to Intels website http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLACR# You will find that the maximum Thermal Specification for a G0 Stepping (also known as SLACR) Intel Q6600 is 71C. Without proper cooling, it is possible to reach that with STOCK PC's.
You will also see that the maximum VID Voltage range is 1.5V. I'm running mine at 1.4v which is stable prime95 for 24 hours.
As long as your 2 factors of HEAT and VOLTAGE are under the processors maximum specifications, you will see very little life expectancy decrease. As a matter of fact if you ran at the maximum thermal specifications and it didn't reach its maximum life expectancy without any other factors like lightning or power surges causing the defect, that could very well be cause for a lawsuit now couldnt it?
I'm sorry but a direct increase in MHZ or GHZ without heat and voltage increases is NOT going to decrease life expectancy in any way. Thats all higher versions of these processors are anyway.
Do you think they have some sort of magical way of making their Extreme line of processors faster?
They're just regular processors with unlocked multipliers and increased voltages.
I've been building computers and overclocking for 9 years. Don't telll me how long something I put together is gonna last without first doing research like I have. Even if this processor only lasts 3 years thats more than I'm gonna need because I'm gonna be upgraded by then.
Overclocking AMD processors is quite different than Intel right now because AMD processors have an Integrated Memory Controller. That means when you raise the processors speed, you also have to decrease your rams speed by the appropriate ratio to make sure ti doesn't get clocked too high. Example
You are at 200MHZ FSB x 11 Multiplier to reach 2200 MHZ or 2.2ghz (theoretical numbers, I'm not sure what phenoms are at)
You want to increase your processor speed, and you can do this by 1 of 2 ways. You can increase the multiplier or you can increase the FSB. Now the multiplier is locked at a maximum but can be reduced unless you have a Black Edition processor, in which the multiplier can be raised and you can get an overclock that way without having to raise your FSB directly.
But since you dont have a black edition you are gonna have to raise your FSB. So you raise it to 220MHZ x 11 to get 2420MHZ or 2.4 ghz
Your rams speed is gonna be raised by 20 MHZ. Say you are running DDR-2 800MHZ, since its DDR2 its double pumped so its actually 400MHZ. You raise speed to 420MHZ, your ram goes up to 840MHZ Double pumped. Now thats a minor overclock so that should be fine. But say you get to 900+ MHZ and your ram isnt rated for that, you're gonna have to do one of 2 things, lower your rams ratio to FSB, or increase your voltage. When you increase voltage you increase heat.
These are just theoretical speeds as I'm not sure what your processor really is running but there are so many different factors.
Don't let that thinks-he-knows-it-all tell you any different without first backing it up with facts. There are plenty of people out there way more knowledgeable than me in overclocking but he's not one.
AMD 6000+
2GB DDR2
8800GTS 320mb
Gigabyte MB
200GB sata.
24" 1920x1200
Crysis at 1920x1200 med/high
Account has been stolen, why would someone want to steal my account?
On an Epic quest, armed with:
* P7N Diamond S775 780i
* 8GB G.Skill DDR2-800MHz
* BFG GeForce 8800 GTS 512MB OC G92 x2
* Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 3.0GHz 1333MHz 6M
* Vista Home Premium 64bit
in my sig
wooooo
Overclocking AMD processors is quite different than Intel right now because AMD processors have an Integrated Memory Controller. That means when you raise the processors speed, you also have to decrease your rams speed by the appropriate ratio to make sure ti doesn't get clocked too high. Example
You are at 200MHZ FSB x 11 Multiplier to reach 2200 MHZ or 2.2ghz (theoretical numbers, I'm not sure what phenoms are at)
You want to increase your processor speed, and you can do this by 1 of 2 ways. You can increase the multiplier or you can increase the FSB. Now the multiplier is locked at a maximum but can be reduced unless you have a Black Edition processor, in which the multiplier can be raised and you can get an overclock that way without having to raise your FSB directly.
But since you dont have a black edition you are gonna have to raise your FSB. So you raise it to 220MHZ x 11 to get 2420MHZ or 2.4 ghz
Your rams speed is gonna be raised by 20 MHZ. Say you are running DDR-2 800MHZ, since its DDR2 its double pumped so its actually 400MHZ. You raise speed to 420MHZ, your ram goes up to 840MHZ Double pumped. Now thats a minor overclock so that should be fine. But say you get to 900+ MHZ and your ram isnt rated for that, you're gonna have to do one of 2 things, lower your rams ratio to FSB, or increase your voltage. When you increase voltage you increase heat.
These are just theoretical speeds as I'm not sure what your processor really is running but there are so many different factors.
Don't let that thinks-he-knows-it-all tell you any different without first backing it up with facts. There are plenty of people out there way more knowledgeable than me in overclocking but he's not one.
Kinda odd.. because i speed up the processor with 208x11= around 2277 but the memory get up to 414.. which still stable, what makes this strange is that memory takes twice the clock.
oh!.. that really looks bragging...
you should try to 3dmark it so you can brag some more...
yes no matter how much cooling you have, if you overclock it as much as vindcoth did, it will not last long. .3-.4 OCs are necessarily that bad, and i would recommend OCing just a little, and not 1.2 ghz. And you would need a pretty good cooling system to keep an OCed processor cool also.
so to answer your question, under extreme OCs you will definetly shortent he lifespan of your CPU, no matter how much cooling you have.
You're ignorance is beginning to annoy me. You don't understand processors at all. The only factors that limit a processors life span are HEAT and VOLTAGE. Heat is also a direct effect from raising Voltage.
If you go to Intels website http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLACR# You will find that the maximum Thermal Specification for a G0 Stepping (also known as SLACR) Intel Q6600 is 71C. Without proper cooling, it is possible to reach that with STOCK PC's.
You will also see that the maximum VID Voltage range is 1.5V. I'm running mine at 1.4v which is stable prime95 for 24 hours.
As long as your 2 factors of HEAT and VOLTAGE are under the processors maximum specifications, you will see very little life expectancy decrease. As a matter of fact if you ran at the maximum thermal specifications and it didn't reach its maximum life expectancy without any other factors like lightning or power surges causing the defect, that could very well be cause for a lawsuit now couldnt it?
I'm sorry but a direct increase in MHZ or GHZ without heat and voltage increases is NOT going to decrease life expectancy in any way. Thats all higher versions of these processors are anyway.
Do you think they have some sort of magical way of making their Extreme line of processors faster?
They're just regular processors with unlocked multipliers and increased voltages.
I've been building computers and overclocking for 9 years. Don't telll me how long something I put together is gonna last without first doing research like I have. Even if this processor only lasts 3 years thats more than I'm gonna need because I'm gonna be upgraded by then.
what do you need to increase a processor's speed? Voltage....... and like i said pushing anything passed its normal settings will cut down its life span, if it wouldnt why would they keep it down at 2.4gh when they can up it up to 3.6 like you? There is a reason why it is at 2.4ghz with the normal voltage. If you make it faster and give it more voltage your gonna have to change it earlier. You dont need to build computers for 9 years to understand this. And i was wrong about the temps i guess, the G0 model is really great as far as temps go, so i hear.
Playing: EVE Online
Favorite MMOs: WoW, SWG Pre-cu, Lineage 2, UO, EQ, EVE online
Looking forward to: Archeage, Kingdom Under Fire 2
KUF2's Official Website - http://www.kufii.com/ENG/ -
I don't know if this is or is not good, but this is my result from PCMark Vantage:
I'll have to install 3DMark at a later point.
DXDiag is in my sig.
When new processors come off the line, they are broken into different branding ( Celeron, Extreem,etc ) categories, and then underclocked, overclocked, etc. to be sold to different users for different prices. But they are all the same damn chip from the same line.
Some AMD processors used to be locked, until people realized you could cut the connecting bridge between two pins to unlock the core speed. AMD finally relented on trying so hard to block overclocking.
Intel sold thousands of the inferior Celeron chips to penny pincher computer users for discount prices. Why was a 2.4GHZ Celeron so much cheaper than a 2.4GHZ PIV? Why were the celerons so inferior to regular PIVs? Because they were factory under-clocked and then had their multipliers locked internally. Otherwise, they were the same damn chip.
And as long as you have the correct cooling, you can keep a processor overclocked indefinitely. You can make a 2.0GHZ cpu run at 5.0GHz if you want, as long as you have enough liquid nitrogen to keep the processor immersed.
When new processors come off the line, they are broken into different branding ( Celeron, Extreem,etc ) categories, and then underclocked, overclocked, etc. to be sold to different users for different prices. But they are all the same damn chip from the same line.
Some AMD processors used to be locked, until people realized you could cut the connecting bridge between two pins to unlock the core speed. AMD finally relented on trying so hard to block overclocking.
Intel sold thousands of the inferior Celeron chips to penny pincher computer users for discount prices. Why was a 2.4GHZ Celeron so much cheaper than a 2.4GHZ PIV? Why were the celerons so inferior to regular PIVs? Because they were factory under-clocked and then had their multipliers locked internally. Otherwise, they were the same damn chip.
And as long as you have the correct cooling, you can keep a processor overclocked indefinitely. You can make a 2.0GHZ cpu run at 5.0GHz if you want, as long as you have enough liquid nitrogen to keep the processor immersed.
i stand corrected
Playing: EVE Online
Favorite MMOs: WoW, SWG Pre-cu, Lineage 2, UO, EQ, EVE online
Looking forward to: Archeage, Kingdom Under Fire 2
KUF2's Official Website - http://www.kufii.com/ENG/ -
yes no matter how much cooling you have, if you overclock it as much as vindcoth did, it will not last long. .3-.4 OCs are necessarily that bad, and i would recommend OCing just a little, and not 1.2 ghz. And you would need a pretty good cooling system to keep an OCed processor cool also.
so to answer your question, under extreme OCs you will definetly shortent he lifespan of your CPU, no matter how much cooling you have.
You're ignorance is beginning to annoy me. You don't understand processors at all. The only factors that limit a processors life span are HEAT and VOLTAGE. Heat is also a direct effect from raising Voltage.
If you go to Intels website http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLACR# You will find that the maximum Thermal Specification for a G0 Stepping (also known as SLACR) Intel Q6600 is 71C. Without proper cooling, it is possible to reach that with STOCK PC's.
You will also see that the maximum VID Voltage range is 1.5V. I'm running mine at 1.4v which is stable prime95 for 24 hours.
As long as your 2 factors of HEAT and VOLTAGE are under the processors maximum specifications, you will see very little life expectancy decrease. As a matter of fact if you ran at the maximum thermal specifications and it didn't reach its maximum life expectancy without any other factors like lightning or power surges causing the defect, that could very well be cause for a lawsuit now couldnt it?
I'm sorry but a direct increase in MHZ or GHZ without heat and voltage increases is NOT going to decrease life expectancy in any way. Thats all higher versions of these processors are anyway.
Do you think they have some sort of magical way of making their Extreme line of processors faster?
They're just regular processors with unlocked multipliers and increased voltages.
I've been building computers and overclocking for 9 years. Don't telll me how long something I put together is gonna last without first doing research like I have. Even if this processor only lasts 3 years thats more than I'm gonna need because I'm gonna be upgraded by then.
what do you need to increase a processor's speed? Voltage....... and like i said pushing anything passed its normal settings will cut down its life span, if it wouldnt why would they keep it down at 2.4gh when they can up it up to 3.6 like you? There is a reason why it is at 2.4ghz with the normal voltage. If you make it faster and give it more voltage your gonna have to change it earlier. You dont need to build computers for 9 years to understand this. And i was wrong about the temps i guess, the G0 model is really great as far as temps go, so i hear.
you dont understand though, you dont need to increase voltage to get 3.0GHZ on this processor, thats still a 600MHZ overclock. You only need to increase voltage SLIGHTLY in order to get 3.4ghz and to get 3.6ghz you only need maybe 0.10 voltage more than stock. A .10 increase in voltage over stock is nothing compared to the 0.30 increase the processor can handle. You dont need 9 years of building computers to understand any of this but you do need to research, and thats what I've been doing for 9 years, and I have barely scratched the surface with this processor by not going into water cooling.
The reason they don't up it to 3.6ghz is.. well they do.
A 2.4ghz Q6600
A 2.6ghz Q6700
A 3.0ghz QX6850
all the same processors, the only difference is that intel loosens the multiplier.
Its smart to do this, you sell a processor for 200 dollars, then just up some settings, sell the same processor for a higher profit margin for 1000 dollars.
ALL PROCESSOR COMPANIES DO THIS. Even IBM.
When new processors come off the line, they are broken into different branding ( Celeron, Extreem,etc ) categories, and then underclocked, overclocked, etc. to be sold to different users for different prices. But they are all the same damn chip from the same line.
Some AMD processors used to be locked, until people realized you could cut the connecting bridge between two pins to unlock the core speed. AMD finally relented on trying so hard to block overclocking.
Intel sold thousands of the inferior Celeron chips to penny pincher computer users for discount prices. Why was a 2.4GHZ Celeron so much cheaper than a 2.4GHZ PIV? Why were the celerons so inferior to regular PIVs? Because they were factory under-clocked and then had their multipliers locked internally. Otherwise, they were the same damn chip.
And as long as you have the correct cooling, you can keep a processor overclocked indefinitely. You can make a 2.0GHZ cpu run at 5.0GHz if you want, as long as you have enough liquid nitrogen to keep the processor immersed.
Err yeah didnt read this explanation before I replied but yeah he pretty much said what I summed up
ok, sry bout my earlier posts, and now i see the light. Did you OC your CPU in the BIOS settings or did you use outside software? And if you did use software, wich ones? I got vista so not much software is compatible yet, and my Asus Striker Extreme is supposedly supposed to OC very well.
Playing: EVE Online
Favorite MMOs: WoW, SWG Pre-cu, Lineage 2, UO, EQ, EVE online
Looking forward to: Archeage, Kingdom Under Fire 2
KUF2's Official Website - http://www.kufii.com/ENG/ -
Yeah i know this has been said before but...
Ouch, I FELL over.
I can't FEEL my legs.
C2D E6750 @ 3.2 GHz
2GB DDR2 ~ 667MHz
Radeon 1950 Pro 256mb ( clocked to max in order to keep up.. )
Gigabyte GA P35-DS3
Schyte Ninja PLUZ Rev. B 120mm
Cool n Quite system.... It does the job atm.
Just a Question, thinking bout buying a new system found a site system build goes as such:
core 2 extreem 9650 oc to 3.8ghz
800 watt xion supernova
asus striker2 formula 780 mb
4gb corsair xm52 pc6400/800mhz ram
(2) nvidia 9600 512mb oc
(2) 150 gb WD raptor HD
20x dvd/cd r/wr (2)
Z5500 5.1 speakers
Killer K1 network card
windows vista home premium 64 bit edition
is this a decent deal at 3559.64 or no, suggestions of pros and or cons would be appreciated
Me
I did it all in the bios. Software OC doesnt really work well besides on video cards.
Don't get the killer K1 network card unless its practically free, onboard gigabit ethernet is always just as good. It's not wortht he premium.
Also dont waste your money on extreme edition processors, look for the mid range processor to overclock and you're only gonna see about a 10% speed difference from a high end.
2 nvidia 9600's is pretty good but before the end of the month nvidia is releasing 9800GX2 which is definitely gonna be the speed champion until the 9800GTX comes out, it may even be faster than the GTX anyway.
Is it better than a 8800 GTX?????
1 9600GT is not better than an 8800GTX, 2 9600GT's in SLI are better than an 8800GTX.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/geforce_9600_gt_sli_performance/page11.asp heres a review and benchmarks.
Easy performance guage VirtuaMark
I scored a 9000 even with:
My system specs are in my xfire profile. As far as over volt proc goes, its up to the mobo to decide the maximum voltage actually apply able. As long as you don't exceed max thermal spec(consumer threshold) 24/7 all is good and expect a long healthy lifespan. Overclock is limited to the chip's physical resistance to heat. All proc's real burnout and unsafe temps are obviously not available to the public.
CURRENTLY PLAYING SHAIYA
is your computer overclocked? sounds like they are lol.....