backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 57 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Feb 8 at 4:21 PM

CPUID screenshot courtesy of VictorWang
Intel's "Conroe" refresh parts overclocked and benchmarked on XtremeSystems

XtremeSystems forum member VictorWang has come across early engineering samples of Intel’s upcoming Core 2 Duo E6850.  The Core 2 Duo E6850 engineering samples are stepping 9 revision E0. Stock voltage on the Core 2 Duo E6850 engineer samples vary between 1.22-1.24-volts.

Intel expects to launch refreshed Core 2 Duo E6x50 series processors later this year with a 1333 MHz front-side-bus.  The refresh is timed with the new Bearlake Intel chipsets.

VictorWang claims the Core 2 Duo E6850 overclocks very well but dislikes voltages higher than 1.48-volts. When air-cooled, the engineer sample Core 2 Duo E6850 is able to reach front-side-bus speeds of 533-570 MHz, the equivalent of over 2 GHz if you take the quad-pumped bus architecture into consideration.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Faked screenshots?
By TechLuster on 2/2/2007 10:01:44 PM , Rating: 2
The last CPU-Z screenshot shows the E6850 running at 3807MHz on only 1.150V (though the voltage utility next to it and his text both state 1.42V).

Is this just a CPU-Z bug, or are these fakes?




RE: Faked screenshots?
By Kougar on 2/3/2007 3:00:40 AM , Rating: 2
CPU-Z bug more than likely, I get the same thing with my Gigabyte board. For accurate voltages I had to resort to Gigabyte's EasyTune5.


Saving money by overclocking
By BuddyHolly on 2/3/2007 3:01:50 PM , Rating: 2
OK let how much does it cost to go to the store and buy a 3.6ghz Core 2 duo system? Oh yes, thats right, you can't. So the top of the line chip is running 2.93ghz and it cost $1000. My 6400 cost me $190 and I run it 700mhz faster than the fastest thing you can by perfectly stable 24/7 for the past 5 months.
Simple math is lost on people these days.
Would I run the space shuttle on this chip overclocked like do? Maybe not a great idea, but not impossible. But encoding my DVD to divx at great quality in 45 minutes vs almost 2 hours it take stock in pretty hard to put a price on.




570?
By dubldwn on 2/2/07, Rating: 0
OMG
By CoreGamer on 2/2/07, Rating: -1
RE: OMG
By jmunjr on 2/2/2007 4:04:03 PM , Rating: 2
Lol, you know someone is an absolute no-lifed dork when they accuse someone else of living "under a rock" for revealing details about a cpu...


RE: OMG
By CoreGamer on 2/2/07, Rating: -1
RE: OMG
By jmunjr on 2/2/2007 4:09:39 PM , Rating: 2
It wasn't an accusation, it was an opinion. It just cracked me up. Reminded me of the annoying computer help desk guy from Saturday Night Live.


RE: OMG
By Hare on 2/2/2007 4:47:44 PM , Rating: 2
This is a blog entry. The author found it interesting that this specific processor is out there. He/she decided that maybe someone else could also find this interesting...

What's wrong with that?


RE: OMG
By Hare on 2/2/2007 4:54:16 PM , Rating: 2
Just realised that this wasn't a blog entry. I stil found this interesting...


overclocking!
By AlmostExAMD on 2/2/07, Rating: -1
RE: overclocking!
By sscilli on 2/3/2007 3:42:50 AM , Rating: 2
Even a modest overclock is worth it. I've got a E6400 that I can't get stable past 2.8Ghz(I guess I didn't get lucky). Right now I'm running it at 2.66Ghz, which saves me nearly 300 dollars more I would have to spend on a E6700. That is still a great value, though I really wish I was running at >3Ghz :(.


RE: overclocking!
By Kragoth on 2/4/2007 8:14:13 PM , Rating: 1
I think all you guys in favour of overclocking are missing one point. Ok, you buy a cheap processor and make it perform like a more expensive one....but that doesn't mean you are really achieving what you keep telling yourself. You could always buy the more expensive processor and overclock it beyond what you can your cheaper one. The idea of overclocking is great but you never achieve the speed of the next processor up the chain because that processor would be able to do better then the one you are overclocking. (OK, I know there are a few exceptions to this rule but it is correct for the majority of processors). The real reason for overclocking is the fact that you cannot afford the more expensive processor and you want more power then the what you can afford, so, you void the warranty and push the processor beyond its rated settings. I say this because 99.9% of you would buy the best processor if money wasn't a problem. You wouldn't buy the cheaper one and overclock it to the same speed.

Overclocking can be stable and relatively safe most of the time. However, overclocking DOES reduce the overall lifespan of the processor. This is a fact. Granted most of us change our processors before that time comes but regardless the fact remains that a processor will degrade faster when overclocked.

Good overclockers also know that results vary buy a very large margin on exactly the same processors. Just because you can get 3.5GHz out of a 2.4GHz machine doesn't mean the next guy can do the same. His processor may max out at 2.8GHz.

There are pros and cons to overclocking and most people are happy with the pros because "GENERALLY" overclocking does not cause any problems at all, IF you follow good procedures when you overclock.

It's sorta pointless to argue about overclocking cause I dont think it will ever stop, and it can produce fantastic performance....and sometimes you never find out what it's doing because you sell up before the results raise their head.

Good luck!


RE: overclocking!
By mindless1 on 2/8/2007 4:21:06 PM , Rating: 2
Sometimes what you write is true but often not.

O'c a cheaper processor DOES mean you are really achieving something because they're multiplier locked, you can't even get the same performance level from o'c of many higher end parts because you hit bus limitations.

You not only achieve the speed of the next processor up, you almost always go FAR FAR beyond that with exceptions being rare.

99.9% of overclockers, if money was no issue, would still seek to o'c whatever they bought.

You have not established that overclocking reduces the CPU lifespan enough to matter, in general. Something extreme or reckless may do so, but it is essentially not an issue of overclocking in general it is an issue of doing it recklessly. What thing in life would not be a potential problem if done recklessly?

It's not overclocking that is the real issue, it is the ability of the system integrator to make a stable system configuration. They either rely on the judgement of others or take it upon themselves. Just like there are good and bad professional engineers making products you buy at retail, so are there good and bad, overclocking end users. Since it's their system, all they have to do is meet their own requirements and that so many who can o'c successfully, do, speaks volumes by itself.


Do people still overclock?
By thebrown13 on 2/2/07, Rating: -1
RE: Do people still overclock?
By dubldwn on 2/2/2007 4:38:22 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Do people still overclock?

Yes.
quote:
I don't know anyone that values speed over stability.

I hope I'm not missing sarcasm here. Overclocking can save you hundreds, can be stable, and for weirdos like me is actually something fun to do when it's raining. I like to push my hardware (and everything else I own). Did you reach for the minivan instead of the Camero?


RE: Do people still overclock?
By thebrown13 on 2/2/07, Rating: -1
RE: Do people still overclock?
By bobsmith1492 on 2/2/2007 5:06:08 PM , Rating: 5
Note: you may be correct when it comes to gaming, but some people do CPU-intensive work where a 50% clock boost saves you 50% of the time it takes to do something...


RE: Do people still overclock?
By thebrown13 on 2/2/07, Rating: -1
RE: Do people still overclock?
By Duwelon on 2/2/07, Rating: -1
RE: Do people still overclock?
By cochy on 2/3/2007 12:08:04 AM , Rating: 2
Actually he doesn't sound like anything but an idiot. Lots of people overclock and it's perfectly stable. Most motherboards these days come with pre-defined overclocking settings so it's as easy to do as setting your cd-rom to the primary boot device.


By StevoLincolnite on 2/3/2007 12:32:06 AM , Rating: 2
Some people cant afford to upgrade and be up to date most of the time, For instance I have a Pentium M 1.6ghz, 1gb of ram, Mobility Radeon 9700pro. I have the Processor sitting at 2.0ghz stable.
The Radeon 9700pro went from 450/210 to 520/270 - And that actually gave me a nice enough improvement to play Oblivion on Medium Quality on my laptop. And If I wish for long life battery, I can reset the clocks in windows.

So how exactly Do I get quad core on my Dothan based laptop? You cant. And I refuse to shell out a few grand for a new machine, if Over clocking can allow me to do the things I need. The heat generated from the processor and graphics card didn't change all that much, And has been running for weeks like it is without a hiccup. Over clocking only fails when the user doesn't know what he is doing, And idiots like yourself obviously do not.


RE: Do people still overclock?
By TechLuster on 2/2/2007 9:53:06 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
a 50% clock boost saves you 50% of the time it takes to do something


Actually, a 50% clock boost will save you 33% of the time it takes to do something. You need a 100% clock boost to halve the required time.

Sorry, I'm a math grad student, so I couldn't let that one go.


RE: Do people still overclock?
By Spivonious on 2/2/2007 11:54:24 PM , Rating: 2
Fantastic reply! :)


RE: Do people still overclock?
By drwho9437 on 2/3/2007 9:59:52 AM , Rating: 2
True, but the math model you used isn't good here:
Performance = A*(x)^r - g(latency, chipset,...)

r though is never equal to 1 though. That's the main point, though linear scaling would be nice.


RE: Do people still overclock?
By leexgx on 2/3/2007 4:22:22 AM , Rating: 2
I got an AMD64 X2 3800+ that norm runs at 2.0ghz i got mine running fine at an fully stable 2.41ghz,

i use 2gb ram ddr2 8800 GTX and 4x 80gb hdds in this pc so i get my bes gameing out of it (i could do with going do then Intel e6600 route or e6300 and Pumping that out to 6800 speeds buts that or an other day)

It will do 2.7ghz but my motherboard does not post at the speed but if i Use Asus AI booster (overclokcing tool in windows) it do 2.7ghz stable in windows and works fine until i reboot it then i just have to turn the pc off and back on and it auto underclocks


RE: Do people still overclock?
By shady28 on 2/3/2007 11:34:38 AM , Rating: 4
I used to overclock a lot, and a I know a fair number of people who talk about overclocking. I think my first overclock system was an AMD 486/100.

My experience has been that overclocking ultimately leads to problems. I've seen many instances where overclocking works for a while, then the overclocker's system 'slows down' and suddenly starts benchmarking badly, then becomes unstable. The bad benchmarking is caused by errors being corrected internally by the CPU. Stability - that's obvious - errors that can't be corrected. All this means something has been damaged - Memory, CPU, chipset - something.

The bottom line is that overclocking isn't something you do if you want to keep a stable, responsive system for a long period of time. It certainly isn't something you want to do to a system you have under a heavy load for many hours over the course of months. And in no way should you try to OC a system that your livelihood depends upon.



RE: Do people still overclock?
By drwho9437 on 2/4/2007 2:27:08 PM , Rating: 3
Certainly aggressive overclocking could lead to issues. However, both AMD/Intel release many chips that you can run faster with no risk. Engineers are conservative, say you could overclock and boot the OS stable at 25% over spec, I wouldn't run it there, but 12% over spec is probably fine. The kind of overclocking I have done, doesn't increase the Vcore. Overclocking of any kind increases power dissipation, but if there is a model out with your same process type with the set overclocked frequency, and you can get there without changes supply voltages, then the Si should be able to handle it thermally, and I really see no problem. Given what perfectly good performing CPUs cost today, I don't see much point to overclocking anymore though.


RE: Do people still overclock?
By rykerabel on 2/5/2007 11:10:03 AM , Rating: 3
/agree

There's overclocking and there's overclocking just like there is speeding and then there's speeding.

Doing 65 in a 55 is ok, but while doing 120 in a 55 is possible, trouble will ensue.


RE: Do people still overclock?
By mindless1 on 2/8/2007 4:04:08 PM , Rating: 2
False, the devil is in the details. Overclocking is a user taking it upon themselves to qualify a part for any specific speed and keep other parameters within stable thresholds. These parameters include margins for longer term use at any given temp, current, expected regular system degradation. It includes testing and retesting, and not being too greedy.

For example, a brand new motherboard and PSU start out with more margin and that margin declines over time, among other factors of course. Someone who tries to get a CPU (etc) running the fastest it possibly can on new equipment is not factoring for this and it wasn't merely the deviation from stock speed that was the problem but the inherant long-term requirements of the specific speed they chose and whether the components and system integration accomdate it.

Some users want to just click a button or tap a key and ignore the other variables besides immediate stability. That is their choice, but it is no evidence against overclocking in general, only against doing it blindly.

In short, stock speed ratings are made to cover an entire product model, all specimens in worst case spec'd scenarios. If these worst case scenarios are not a constant, if better conditions exist, or specimens are better than what's deemed least acceptible per manufacturing margins, a specific combination of parts can be found to work at higher speed.

If Intel, AMD, et al. were able to stipulate more tightly controlled (and less cost constrained) system configuations, they too would be spec'ing higher speeds for any given part. Instead they recognize a need to keep product perception positive, minimize problems and reduce RMAs. Then there's the binning for no other reason than market demand, cheap parts just sell better even if every single one of them can run 30% faster, they still have to degrade the performance to differentiate the fastest parts any given era of technology can produce.

Some people can safely drive a car at 50 in a 40 MPH zone, but other travelers along same path might find they aren't safe at 40. user, equipment and ambient conditions are quite significant. Fortunately, unlike automobile travel we can push a system beyond it's limits until a fault is found, in a testing phase that poses minimal risks. Find your margin and aim far enough under it, and there isn't any reason an o'c system can't run for over a decade, certainly longer than viable if such a system-use had a legitimate need for higher performance before such system was replaced.


RE: Do people still overclock?
By dubldwn on 2/2/2007 5:17:35 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
So... good job you saved $50.

$50? E6600 is $316. X6800 is $970. Difference is $654. Now, if you jack up the fsb to 333, you've already beat the X6800. This is a vey simple and totally stable overclock. I'm mean 1333? Does that even count? Seems to me, you'd be foolish not to. I seriously doubt you'll notice any less stability on any credible P965, I don't know how to respond to not guaranteed to work, a $15 TT cooler will actually net cooler than stock, using more power is negligible, taking time is moot because it's fun for me, and regarding hardware life/problems, do you really think this "overclocked" E6600 would last much less time that an X6800? Finally, as the OP noted, it's just not accurate to say all you get is 5 FPS.


RE: Do people still overclock?
By robber98 on 2/2/2007 5:51:13 PM , Rating: 2
Look, if you don't know anything about overclocking, then please don't make comment and leave. You are setting up a flame war in here. :P


RE: Do people still overclock?
By TonyM16 on 2/6/2007 8:23:21 AM , Rating: 2
LOL. You have no clue what you are missing. The past two systems I have had would stutter a bit in Oblivion and a few other games. Simply by overclocking my X2 chip to 2.7ghz I was getting smooth gameplay. Who cares about fps, it all just comes down to smooth or not, and a fast cpu really helps smooth things out as long as you have a good gpu.

I now have a E6600 and I have clocked it at 3.5ghz. It's just as stable as it was at stock, but is noticeably fater in games. Even in FEAR I increased my min fps by 6fps and thats at 2560x1600 with 4xAA/16xAF and max settings. You need a fast cpu for 8800gtx sli and below 3ghz doesn't cut it.It's completely safe and necessary for my system.


RE: Do people still overclock?
By Samus on 2/3/07, Rating: 0
RE: Do people still overclock?
By AdamK47 on 2/3/2007 3:26:46 AM , Rating: 3
Ehem... Camaro


RE: Do people still overclock?
By Samus on 2/4/2007 2:56:45 AM , Rating: 2
whatever, I don't keep up with any of that GM crap;) lolz


RE: Do people still overclock?
By Hare on 2/2/2007 4:44:59 PM , Rating: 3
Please educate yourself a little more before making statements like that.

Let's see. The E6300 and the E6400 are exactly the same processor, the only difference is the multiplier. E6300 has 7 and E6400 has 8. So if I run my E6300 at the speed of the E6400 it is exactly the same thing and there is no difference in stability.

Lower end conroes pretty much all run >3Ghz without any problems. Check out the screenshot above. The guy is running orthos which puts the processor cores under max load. A load that you won't ever aproach with games etc. Run orthos for a few hours and if there are no errors the system is stable .

Overclocked systems are just as stable as any systems. It's just a matter of knowing the limits and not going over them.

"5fps difference"? Now you sound just ridiculous. I'm running my E6300 (stock ~1.8Ghz) @ 3Ghz and it's faster than a FX-62 AMD. The performance growth was over 150%. That's a bit more than 5fps. The difference is between rendering a scene in an hour vs an hour and a half!


RE: Do people still overclock?
By Oregonian2 on 2/2/2007 5:05:51 PM , Rating: 2
A E6300 and E6400 may be the same, or maybe not. When made, they're potentially the same, but one difference is that they're 'binned". They're tested for speed. Ones that fail to meet E6400 speed are put in the E6300 bin so long as they pass the E6300's speed test. However when demand and yields don't match, parts may be put from higher bins into lower bins and marked as such. So a given E6300 part may be a 3Ghz part, or it may only just barely make the 1.8G mark. So having one (or even a handful) of parts that overclock nicely doesn't mean some other part with the same designation will necessarily even meet the next bin's speed (E6400 in this case). So it's somewhat of a lottery situation. One's odds depend on how good the speed yield is for the part and its process (and how that yield relates to the relative demand of the parts), but it's a lottery none the less. The multiplier differences undoubtedly are a test-time configuration done to the part (there's a number of ways it could be done).



RE: Do people still overclock?
By dubldwn on 2/2/2007 5:35:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, that makes a lot of sense, but how often have you read about someone with an E6300 hitting a wall around stock? That would be anecdotal, not representative. I know all individual pieces of hardware are different, but you have to try. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night with a stock E6300.


RE: Do people still overclock?
By dubldwn on 2/2/2007 5:42:43 PM , Rating: 2
Not that I'm sleeping with E6300s, stock or otherwise.


RE: Do people still overclock?
By Oregonian2 on 2/2/2007 6:20:16 PM , Rating: 2
So how often is someone who tries to overclock going to advertise failure? Most overclocking forum posts I've read are essentially boasts. People like me who's E6600 will fail the pi-calculating test with even modest overclocking (about 2.7G max, so not enough to be worth the risk of finding a weaker-point, and just leaves it at 2.4G) just keeps quiet (oops! my secret is out!).


RE: Do people still overclock?
By dubldwn on 2/2/2007 6:34:55 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the anecdote!
quote:
So how often is someone who tries to overclock going to advertise failure?

I see what you mean here, too. Still, if you go to newegg, you'll find hundreds of user reviews (not all oc, of course) of the E6300, and it seems that just about no one is having a problem. Regarding your? E6600, that's not a failure on your part, if you can't get past 2.7 on SuperPi then that's a hardware issue that might not even be the chip.


RE: Do people still overclock?
By Hare on 2/3/2007 3:31:39 AM , Rating: 2
True, however... I don't think there's a single E6300 out there that could not exceed E6400 clockrate. Practically all conroes run over 2.5Ghz with stock voltage so the "binning" and speed tests are meaningless. I haven't seen a single E6300 that couldn't exceed 2.5Ghz and I've seen quite a few on different forums...


RE: Do people still overclock?
By althaz on 2/3/2007 4:00:30 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, Conroes are binned on power consumption, not speed. Any Conroe will hit 3Ghz if the rest of the system is capable, but a lower end part will (generally, not always) use slightly more power to do so. Prior to Conroe, most chips were binned by heat the levels are picked never to kick the stock cooler out of low RPM spinning.


RE: Do people still overclock?
By mindless1 on 2/8/2007 4:12:20 PM , Rating: 2
you are only guessing that there are some that are tested for E6400 speed and fail. I would suggest just the opposite, that Intel won't be selling ANY E6300 that has so little margin that it couldn't run fine at E6400 too.

If you were talking about a far larger difference in clockspeed it would become more true, especially if we concede it has to be at a lesser thermal or voltage margin, but it's not so reasonable to expect them to grade a different voltage for each specimen of any particular model either. Naturally this ignores rebinning to cover shortages, unanticipated demand in lower binned models.


RE: Do people still overclock?
By gus6464 on 2/2/2007 9:58:37 PM , Rating: 2
I have an Opteron 165 on a DFI expert motherboard overclocked to 2.9ghz which has been running 24/7 for a year now and has been rock solid. Overclocking is great especially when you take a $300 cpu to run like a $1000 one with some simple tweaking. These are 1 year old prices btw before core 2 duo came out and AMD was best bang for buck. But I love my system and still does everything I throw at it so wont be looking to upgrade for at least another year until quad core cpus get to the $400-500 range.


RE: Do people still overclock?
By Kougar on 2/2/2007 5:21:57 PM , Rating: 2
Then you don't know the right people. I run only 100% stable overclocks, and last I checked this system has been running completely stable with no errors for over 47 days now without any need for a reboot yet. Most non-overclocked systems are not even this stable. :)

A simple 1ghz overclock on any Core 2 Duo will yield some extremely sizeable performance improvements as well at no loss of stability, there are more than enough benchmarks to prove this.


RE: Do people still overclock?
By Oregonian2 on 2/2/2007 6:24:42 PM , Rating: 4
You running OS-X? Everybody knows that only Macs can run for longer than a day or two without blue-screening! Saw it on a TV ad, so it must be true!


RE: Do people still overclock?
By Kougar on 2/3/2007 2:56:34 AM , Rating: 2
lol! Macs have BSODs?

Yeah I'm running my XP Pro w/ SP2 install on a mac system, yeah that's it. ;)


RE: Do people still overclock?
By Jeff7181 on 2/2/2007 5:27:02 PM , Rating: 2
Incorrect overclocking methods lead to instability and BSOD's. If your IQ is at least 100, you should be able to follow one of the thousands of instructional guides scattered all over the Internet and achieve a stable overclock.

Obviously it has it's place... and that place is not, for example, in a data center in a database server that serves hundreds or thousands of users.


RE: Do people still overclock?
By golfjam on 2/2/2007 5:30:10 PM , Rating: 2
People who complain about stability should do their homework first. I have an E6600 pushed to 3.50ghz and it runs solid. You only need another CPU fan ($24.99 upgrade) to run it silent. And trust me, there's more than 5fps difference from 2.40 to 3.50ghz.


RE: Do people still overclock?
By Uncle C on 2/2/2007 9:57:52 PM , Rating: 2
I only overclock.
My cpu, ram and graphics have not been stock since their first bootup. Overclocking saves me lots of money and is an enjoyable hobby.


RE: Do people still overclock?
By GoatMonkey on 2/3/2007 1:07:49 AM , Rating: 2
Does this guy ever actually READ any of the articles posted on this site. These responses cracked me up.


RE: Do people still overclock?
By Targon on 2/3/2007 8:40:22 AM , Rating: 3
Perhaps you have been away for a long time, but almost every CPU out there can be overclocked at least a little without ANY loss of stability, or even the need to tweak them to make them work.

The basic idea is that AMD and Intel really only try to make perhaps three or four different processors. That's it, and they aim for them to be the highest end available at the time. This makes a lot of sense because it costs money to TRY to make all the different speed grade processors, so why not aim to make only the top end?

So, the processors are manufactured, and during testing, some don't operate properly at the rated speed. These "failures" are then tested at slower speeds, and that is where the slower processors in theory should come from. They run properly and are certified to operate perfectly at the slower speed, and for these chips that failed at the top speed, they don't overclock very well. This backs up your idea that overclocking leads to stability issues.

Unfortunately for you, that's not the whole story. When AMD or Intel release processors, they announce and are expected to sell chips in all the listed speed grades. What happens when there are NOT enough failed top end chips to fill the demand for slower chips? This is really what AMD and Intel do continually, they take perfectly good chips rated to work perfectly at the highest speeds, and they sell them as lower-end chips anyway.

If you get one of these processors that passed the QA process for the highest end but were clocked down and sold to satisfy demand for slower chips, there is NO loss of stability in running them at the speed of the highest end chips.

At the same time, what if the current highest end rated chips COULD be run faster due to design and manufacturing, but AMD or Intel have decided they just don't want to sell chips that run that fast yet? If you think about it, chip manufacturers make a lot of money by having people upgrade their computers and processors over time. Why introduce a chip at the edge of what the technology will allow when you can put the top end much lower, and then without ANY additional R&D, just release faster and faster versions?

So, when a new processor "core" is released from AMD or Intel, tech sites and enthusiasts buy one, and test how far the technology will go. They don't increase the voltage, or put fancy coolers on them initially, they just test the stability of the new chips to see how good the technology is. In some cases, without any tweaking of voltages or bus speeds or anything, these top end chips can be run perfectly well at speeds 10 percent or even more over the rated speed of the chip.

Now, if the testing is as stable while overclocked, and the CPU temperatures are still fairly low while on "stock" cooling, there really wouldn't be much of a reason not to overclock.

What you probably think of when it comes to overclocking are the hard-core overclockers, who use watercooling, or even liquid nitrogen to keep the processor cool just to keep it stable. For those who really know what they are doing, these overclocked processors using extreme cooling methods are just as stable as the processors that have not been overclocked. The electric bill, and the cost to set up these machines may very well not be worth the cost savings when it comes down to it, but for those who go to this extreme, they ENJOY doing this.

The end result is all about what you feel comfortable with. As it stands, with a Microsoft Windows based machine, most of us will reboot our computers at least once a day to make sure the system stays stable. So, if you buy a $300 processor, chances are you can easily boost the performance to that of a $400 processor without any loss of stability, or much of an increase in CPU temperature. If you buy a $800 or even more expensive processor, you may be able to get even more value out of your purchase by overclocking it.

The real benefit comes to those who buy a $150 processor, but are able to increase the speed to that of a $500+ processor because the chip DID pass the QA process for the top end, but was clocked down to satisfy demand for the low end. For these people, they save a LOT of money, and sacrifice only the warranty. Even if you only overclock that $150 processor to the settings of a $200 processor, you will get a little additional value on your purchase, and the chance that your machine will be unstable is so low, it's not even worth being concerned about.

So, why NOT overclock, at least a little? In general, it would be foolish not to if you buy in the low to mid end of the CPU market anyway. If you find that stability has gone down, then you just set things back the way they were, or overclock a bit differently.


By clairvoyant129 on 2/3/2007 2:16:45 PM , Rating: 2
Yes people still overclock you ****ing moron. There are things called, "stable overclocks," and it's easy to do. Morons like you who buy e-machine PCs with locked BIOS shouldn't make these outrageous claims.


RE: Do people still overclock?
By AMDZen on 2/5/2007 11:53:47 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps your simply too ignorant to get your proc stable.

I have an Mobile Athlon XP 2500+ which I bought 4 years ago or so which runs stock at 1.8 ghz, I've had it running stable, on air at 2.5 Ghz since a week or so after I bought it and its still running strong and 100% stable. I've overclocked every processor I've ever owned and I have yet to burn a single one out.

Its obvious to me that you simple aren't familiar with a lot of things in the CPU world, namely that fabrication isn't an art - maybe you should educate yourself. Or then again, its people like you that keep companies like Alienware in business, so by all means continue to be naive to the world


RE: Do people still overclock?
By somerset on 2/8/2007 12:01:35 PM , Rating: 2
return to your home planet.


"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki