You overclock because you can and it's easy.jsnipy wrote:
I have notice that no matter how good some component is that someone buys, they always want to over clock it.
I can understand when one buy a lower cost component to make it perform like a higher priced one, but why when pay for the best components you want to risk premature wear and tear?
Last edited by Ryan (2007-07-15 13:00:05)
Of course you get premature wear and tear.Ryan wrote:
You overclock because you can and it's easy.jsnipy wrote:
I have notice that no matter how good some component is that someone buys, they always want to over clock it.
I can understand when one buy a lower cost component to make it perform like a higher priced one, but why when pay for the best components you want to risk premature wear and tear?
I don't think you get 'premature wear and tear' though.
Not a waste because ...Bull3t wrote:
Performance.
If you have a system that is overclockable and you are not doing so then you wasted your money.
I would not say you wasted your money.Bertster7 wrote:
Of course you get premature wear and tear
Last edited by jsnipy (2007-07-15 13:43:26)
That's not true. Of the Core 2 Duos the CPU that OCs the best (can get the biggest performance boost without LN cooling) is the E6300 (particularly the earlier manufactured ones).buLLet_t00th wrote:
The more expensive Core 2 Duo's are better at OC'n than the cheaper ones. The Extreme types are already clocked pretty high though.
The newer technology is better suited to the demands of OC'n but there is always a chance something will go wrong.
I was looking at the highest clock speed achievable, not the biggest jump from stock. That works with what I said.Bertster7 wrote:
That's not true. Of the Core 2 Duos the CPU that OCs the best (can get the biggest performance boost without LN cooling) is the E6300 (particularly the earlier manufactured ones).buLLet_t00th wrote:
The more expensive Core 2 Duo's are better at OC'n than the cheaper ones. The Extreme types are already clocked pretty high though.
The newer technology is better suited to the demands of OC'n but there is always a chance something will go wrong.
The lower end ones (6300/6400) typically hit higher FSBs, with the Kentsfield cores being quite poor at hitting the big FSB OCs without serious voltage increments. High FSB OCs give the best boost in performance, provided you have decent RAM and a quality Mobo, therefore the cheaper Core 2 Duos actually OC better than the expensive ones, despite have low, locked multipliers.
It would work with what you said, if it were not for the fact that's not what being better at overclocking is. Being better at overclocking is being able to achieve the biggest jump from stock.buLLet_t00th wrote:
I was looking at the highest clock speed achievable, not the biggest jump from stock. That works with what I said.Bertster7 wrote:
That's not true. Of the Core 2 Duos the CPU that OCs the best (can get the biggest performance boost without LN cooling) is the E6300 (particularly the earlier manufactured ones).buLLet_t00th wrote:
The more expensive Core 2 Duo's are better at OC'n than the cheaper ones. The Extreme types are already clocked pretty high though.
The newer technology is better suited to the demands of OC'n but there is always a chance something will go wrong.
The lower end ones (6300/6400) typically hit higher FSBs, with the Kentsfield cores being quite poor at hitting the big FSB OCs without serious voltage increments. High FSB OCs give the best boost in performance, provided you have decent RAM and a quality Mobo, therefore the cheaper Core 2 Duos actually OC better than the expensive ones, despite have low, locked multipliers.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-07-15 14:09:47)
But the way I see it (having the highest end speed) still goes with what I said, the E6600 goes from 2.4 to 3.4 without changing voltages. The lower end E6320 starts at 1.86 and goes to 2.7 - 2.8 without changing voltages. This is all at standard air cooling and from all the crazy OC crowd at OCUK forums.Bertster7 wrote:
It would work with what you said, if it were not for the fact that's not what being better at overclocking is. Being better at overclocking is being able to achieve the biggest jump from stock.buLLet_t00th wrote:
I was looking at the highest clock speed achievable, not the biggest jump from stock. That works with what I said.Bertster7 wrote:
That's not true. Of the Core 2 Duos the CPU that OCs the best (can get the biggest performance boost without LN cooling) is the E6300 (particularly the earlier manufactured ones).
The lower end ones (6300/6400) typically hit higher FSBs, with the Kentsfield cores being quite poor at hitting the big FSB OCs without serious voltage increments. High FSB OCs give the best boost in performance, provided you have decent RAM and a quality Mobo, therefore the cheaper Core 2 Duos actually OC better than the expensive ones, despite have low, locked multipliers.
On air cooling the 6300 comfortably hits 3.4 (83%OC), the 6600 comfortably hits 3.6 (50%OC) - that's a better increase. Results will vary from chip to chip, but those are pretty average figures.buLLet_t00th wrote:
But the way I see it (having the highest end speed) still goes with what I said, the E6600 goes from 2.4 to 3.4 without changing voltages. The lower end E6320 starts at 1.86 and goes to 2.7 - 2.8 without changing voltages. This is all at standard air cooling and from all the crazy OC crowd at OCUK forums.Bertster7 wrote:
It would work with what you said, if it were not for the fact that's not what being better at overclocking is. Being better at overclocking is being able to achieve the biggest jump from stock.buLLet_t00th wrote:
I was looking at the highest clock speed achievable, not the biggest jump from stock. That works with what I said.
From what I see here the change is higher generally with the more expensive CPU, and the higher multiplier allows cheaper boards to be used as the FSB doesn't need to be as high..
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-07-15 14:42:41)
Last edited by link52787 (2007-07-15 14:42:00)
Higher FSB on Core 2 Duo's don't really have a big performance jump and it's barely noticeable.Bertster7 wrote:
That's not true. Of the Core 2 Duos the CPU that OCs the best (can get the biggest performance boost without LN cooling) is the E6300 (particularly the earlier manufactured ones).buLLet_t00th wrote:
The more expensive Core 2 Duo's are better at OC'n than the cheaper ones. The Extreme types are already clocked pretty high though.
The newer technology is better suited to the demands of OC'n but there is always a chance something will go wrong.
The lower end ones (6300/6400) typically hit higher FSBs, with the Kentsfield cores being quite poor at hitting the big FSB OCs without serious voltage increments. High FSB OCs give the best boost in performance, provided you have decent RAM and a quality Mobo, therefore the cheaper Core 2 Duos actually OC better than the expensive ones, despite have low, locked multipliers.
Yes it does. It's very noticeable. Perhaps you haven't been doing your settings right?cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Higher FSB on Core 2 Duo's don't really have a big performance jump and it's barely noticeable.Bertster7 wrote:
That's not true. Of the Core 2 Duos the CPU that OCs the best (can get the biggest performance boost without LN cooling) is the E6300 (particularly the earlier manufactured ones).buLLet_t00th wrote:
The more expensive Core 2 Duo's are better at OC'n than the cheaper ones. The Extreme types are already clocked pretty high though.
The newer technology is better suited to the demands of OC'n but there is always a chance something will go wrong.
The lower end ones (6300/6400) typically hit higher FSBs, with the Kentsfield cores being quite poor at hitting the big FSB OCs without serious voltage increments. High FSB OCs give the best boost in performance, provided you have decent RAM and a quality Mobo, therefore the cheaper Core 2 Duos actually OC better than the expensive ones, despite have low, locked multipliers.
By having the same speed, different FSB. The performance is barely noticeable.Bertster7 wrote:
Yes it does. It's very noticeable. Perhaps you haven't been doing your settings right?cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Higher FSB on Core 2 Duo's don't really have a big performance jump and it's barely noticeable.Bertster7 wrote:
That's not true. Of the Core 2 Duos the CPU that OCs the best (can get the biggest performance boost without LN cooling) is the E6300 (particularly the earlier manufactured ones).
The lower end ones (6300/6400) typically hit higher FSBs, with the Kentsfield cores being quite poor at hitting the big FSB OCs without serious voltage increments. High FSB OCs give the best boost in performance, provided you have decent RAM and a quality Mobo, therefore the cheaper Core 2 Duos actually OC better than the expensive ones, despite have low, locked multipliers.
In any case, the lower end Conroes OC the best. The 6300 and 6400 (not the 6320 and 6420 - which don't OC quite as well due to having the extra cache - it's a similar situation with OCing to many of the P4 era Celerons, which OCd well due to only having 128K cache) see the best improvements - with 100% OCs being quite realistic with a 6300, a 100% OC on higher end Conroes, whilst achievable, is difficult to get without some serious playing about and massive cooling.
I have an e6400 (2.13) running at 3.2 on the stock cooler. Not a single glitch in over a month.buLLet_t00th wrote:
The more expensive Core 2 Duo's are better at OC'n than the cheaper ones. The Extreme types are already clocked pretty high though.
The newer technology is better suited to the demands of OC'n but there is always a chance something will go wrong.
The difference in performance is very noticable, but of course it depends how you have your ratios and memory speeds set up.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
By having the same speed, different FSB. The performance is barely noticeable.Bertster7 wrote:
Yes it does. It's very noticeable. Perhaps you haven't been doing your settings right?cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Higher FSB on Core 2 Duo's don't really have a big performance jump and it's barely noticeable.
In any case, the lower end Conroes OC the best. The 6300 and 6400 (not the 6320 and 6420 - which don't OC quite as well due to having the extra cache - it's a similar situation with OCing to many of the P4 era Celerons, which OCd well due to only having 128K cache) see the best improvements - with 100% OCs being quite realistic with a 6300, a 100% OC on higher end Conroes, whilst achievable, is difficult to get without some serious playing about and massive cooling.
And? I suspect you'd be able to get even more.geNius wrote:
I have an e6400 (2.13) running at 3.2 on the stock cooler. Not a single glitch in over a month.buLLet_t00th wrote:
The more expensive Core 2 Duo's are better at OC'n than the cheaper ones. The Extreme types are already clocked pretty high though.
The newer technology is better suited to the demands of OC'n but there is always a chance something will go wrong.