 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lewis wrote:
>
> That's another aspect of overclocking - it's theft, at least legally.
What about the thiefs who sells the SAME chip a different prices, just
to artificially create a low-end and a high-end market ?
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yeah, I don't really see why it's theft... after all, you've bought it...
it's yours to use how you see fit... you could use it as a paper weight if
you wan't (granted, an expensive paper weight)...
You could blow it to bits if you wanted... it's yours, isn't it? For
example, Intel couldn't just come around to your house and tell they want to
use your processor that you bought off them... it's yours, right?
--
Lance.
---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://listen.to/colorblind
Fabien Mosen <101### [at] compuserve com> wrote in message
<372D36BE.A4B63605@compuserve.com>...
>Lewis wrote:
>>
>> That's another aspect of overclocking - it's theft, at least legally.
>
>What about the thiefs who sells the SAME chip a different prices, just
>to artificially create a low-end and a high-end market ?
>
>Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I think you misunderstood the article. Cooling per se does not increase the
speed of a chip. Indeed, at least one company sells computers with
super-cooled processors (AMD K-3). And these processors _are_ oveclocked.
This is very different from remarking (which is illegal and cheating). The
company makes it very clear what processor is used and that it is
overclocked, so all is legal. The processor manufacturer will simply not
accept any liability for such a product.
Margus
Lewis wrote:
>
> What I DID see, was a computer company that sells super-cooled
> computers, not overclocked, and the result was a yet faster chip that
> was legal to resell.
>
> That's another aspect of overclocking - it's theft, at least legally.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Not to beat an old dead thread but,
I shaved a little 6 seconds from the skyvase benchmark just by
choosing "load high performance settings" in my BIOS (Ami). From 108 seconds
to 102 it's a 5.5% improvement (1). Nothing dramatic but certainly less
risky than overclocking. My motherboard offers me two settings for the Front
Bus Speed : 66 Mhz for the Celeron 366A that I run or death at 100Mhz unless
I switch to a P II-III.
(1) That's 1h20 odd minutes a day, 20 days 1 hour 48 minutes a year, a
little more than 4 years a lifetime (average male) %<))
JM
>
>
> Was sitting here tonight reading... and considering what I could do
>with a 450 Mhz pentium if I could get my hands on one. (I've been told
>people VERY often drive them 550 and higher Mhz)
>I myself am using a 150 mhz pentium overclocked to 166. I was
>wondering, since RAW cpu cycles are practically EVERYTHING when it
>comes to povray, how many of you are using overclocked machines?
>Just curious.
>
> Johnny
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Instead of over clocking my cpu I upgraded from my lowly 166 Mhz to a
200MMX ( all my mb can hand, new system next year).
I went from 884s to 581s (in normal render, running win 95) even
forgot to turn off screen saver and answering machine.
Brian
--
Southern Cross Akitas (SCA)
Pampa, Tx
http://www.centramedia.com/users/bivolcic
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Brian & Lois Bivolcic wrote:
>
> Instead of over clocking my cpu I upgraded from my lowly 166 Mhz to a
> 200MMX ( all my mb can hand, new system next year).
> I went from 884s to 581s (in normal render, running win 95) even
> forgot to turn off screen saver and answering machine.
> Brian
>
> --
> Southern Cross Akitas (SCA)
> Pampa, Tx
> http://www.centramedia.com/users/bivolcic
I experienced a similar improvement by going from a p166 to the p200mmx
processor architecture. I had read where there was a noticable performance
difference between the two but hadn't expected as much as I actually got
from the upgrade. Got another 4 - 8% by switching from w95 to w98.
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 07 May 1999 20:00:39 -0700, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
>Got another 4 - 8% by switching from w95 to w98.
Have you tried the "98Lite" technique of crippling MSIE so that it
doesn't automatically load upon startup? I think the .url is
http://www.98lite.net
I implemented the simple manual method that allows me to put things
back as originally installed. It takes only minutes to accomplish. I
tried it and it freed significant system resources that could be put
to better use with other applications.
--
Alan
------------------------------------------------------------------
povray.org - official home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer
news.povray.org - where POV-Ray enthusiasts from around the world
- get together to exchange ideas and experiences
------------------------------------------------------------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
What memory load do you get at bootup in win98??
Not "resources" but actual RAM free ?
I have 95, and get 32 Mb... (50% of my 64Mb)
Ken wrote:
>
> Brian & Lois Bivolcic wrote:
> >
> > Instead of over clocking my cpu I upgraded from my lowly 166 Mhz to a
> > 200MMX ( all my mb can hand, new system next year).
> > I went from 884s to 581s (in normal render, running win 95) even
> > forgot to turn off screen saver and answering machine.
> > Brian
> >
> > --
> > Southern Cross Akitas (SCA)
> > Pampa, Tx
> > http://www.centramedia.com/users/bivolcic
>
> I experienced a similar improvement by going from a p166 to the p200mmx
> processor architecture. I had read where there was a noticable performance
> difference between the two but hadn't expected as much as I actually got
> from the upgrade. Got another 4 - 8% by switching from w95 to w98.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
--
//Spider -- [ spi### [at] bahnhofse ]-[ http://www.bahnhof.se/~spider/ ]
And the meek'll inherit what they damn well please
Get ahead, go figure, go ahead and pull the trigger
Everything under the gun
--"Sisters Of Mercy" -- "Under The Gun"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Currently running my pc at 580 Mhz
More info at
http://www.overclockers.com/articles19/index.asp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I would like to point a couple things out.
With todays standards for Intel cpu's ie: P2's and P3's, they are clock
locked. Multipliers for settings are "locked" to thier prospective
settings. When Intel manufactors thier cpu's they quickly test them for
errors at different speeds and mark them accordingly to thier specifcations.
What does this mean? That the same category of cpu using the same L2 cache
4ns, 4.5 ns, 5.0ns and 5.5 ns cache )
are basically the same cpu. Example a P2 400 and a P2 450 both using 4.5 ns
cache are identical pieces of hardware with one difference a clock
multiplier.
The way people "overclock" thier cpu's now, isn't by changing the
clock multiplier but by changing the speed of thier front side bus ( FSB )
The cpu will act normally with the bus higher than nornal with the following
guidelines.
1.Thier ram supports higher bus speeds.
2.Heat from the cpu is dissapated thouroughly
3. FSB is not past the theoritical limitations of the speed of the L2 cache
4. PCI cards are not pushed past the limit of thier maximum PCI bus speeds.
Todays motherboards are very good at the above.
An example of a VERY stable system:
P2 300 (deschutes core ) @ 333 Mhz
also P2 300 (deschutes core ) @ 450 MHz
Why? Provided the L2 cache is 4.5 ns ( most deschutes cores are except the
original P2 333 which had a 5 ns cache )
and PC 100 sdram is used. Of the above systems the pc running at 450 is THE
MORE STABLE cpu. The pci bus is running at it's intended speed or 1/3 of
100.
Will you damage your cpu? Quite frankly no. The killer of all cpu's isn't
bus speed or higher clock rates, but the amount of heat involved. With
proper cooling you can expect the life of the cpu to be the same.
Here are the cpu's that I currently own and they are all overclocked.
P2 333 ( non clock locked ) running at 4x103 or 412MHz
P2 300 ( SL2W8 deschutes core ) 4x103 or 464
P2 Celeron 300a ( boxed version Malay ) 4.5x 112 or 504
and my pc P3 450 running at 4.5@129MHz fsb or 580MHz. ( 4ns cache core
Voltage 2.1 )
If you follow common sense and watch your systems resources your pc will run
very well at a higher than normal FSB.
Ed
http://www.overclockers.com/articles19/index.asp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
