Share Your Overclocking Results

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 27 Feb 2007, 12:21

Anyway, I thought that this might be a fun thread.

I managed to overclock my Core 2 Duo E6400 (2.13GHz) to 3.0GHz and my DDR2 667MHz RAM to 752MHz. The CPU runs at an average temperature of ~58ºC at maximum load for both cores.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 27 Feb 2007, 17:19

Is that what your Core 2 Duo E6400 is always set to? or just once in a while

as hell the overclocking for these new chips seesm to be very high, I am looking into getting the Core 2 Duo E6600 or 700 at the moment, depends on when I get the cash for the new PC, but overclocking them chips seems to make them better than the massive priced high end versions for a fraction of the price.

I have never overcloked chips etc.. yet, as mine will blow up

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 27 Feb 2007, 19:50

AMD Athlon 64 3500+ overclocked from 2.2 ghz to 2.64 ghz.
Underclocked RAM (166 mhz instead of 200).
Perfectly stable.

35°C idle.
42°C at full speed.

I've managed to take it to 2.7 ghz before, but 2.64 is more stable.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 27 Feb 2007, 20:14

Do you lot get much more noticble difference then when playing games, using word etc..

I want a powerful processor, but they cost so much its scary, so getting a cheaper one and overclocking it may be the b est way for me. Still a bit scared of blowing things up mind you

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 27 Feb 2007, 21:50

romerojpg wrote:Is that what your Core 2 Duo E6400 is always set to? or just once in a while

Well, since last night anyway.

as hell the overclocking for these new chips seesm to be very high, I am looking into getting the Core 2 Duo E6600 or 700 at the moment,
... but overclocking them chips seems to make them better than the massive priced high end versions for a fraction of the price.

Yup, people have managed to push C2D E6300 (1.8GHz) to like 3.2-3.4GHz. To achieve speeds that high you'll need DDR2 800MHz RAM (PC2-6400) and a good aftermarket cooler like a Zalman 9700 (I'm using a Zalman 7700), the stock cooler won't cut the mustard. Also you don't want a cheap generic Powersupply, you want a good brand name one (Eg Enermax, Cooler Master, Silverstone).

I have never overcloked chips etc.. yet, as mine will blow up

You always seem to have bad luck.

These C2D's are pretty safe to OC from what I've read. Just have good aftermarket cooling and a well ventilated case and you should be fine.

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 28 Feb 2007, 12:19

Romero wrote:Do you lot get much more noticble difference then when playing games, using word etc..

I do.
The difference between 2.2 and 2.6 is huge.
+ 2.6 allows me to watch high-definition 1080p Quicktime trailers (I can't do that with 2.2 ghz).

EDIT:
Forgot to add proof.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 28 Feb 2007, 12:29

That's wird. I have much lower specs than Tom, but I can most definately watch hi def apple trailers (which are 1080p I believe)

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 28 Feb 2007, 17:30

Its a strange thing the whole clock speed thing, as in reality some people with brand new duel core chips may not be able to play some new games, as they dont have enuff Ghz to them.
Doom 3 for instance has high specs even now years later. I at the moment have a lonley single core Pentium 4 - 2.8Ghz chip which means I can play any game no matter what and watch HD etc.. with no probs, these newer chips are clocked so low that some of them feel like a big step backwards, even if they probibly do blow my 2.8 out of the water with ease.

I wish they had continued with the upping of the Ghz for chips and now they may be up to 6Ghz

its harder to upgrade when in reality your going backwards in speed, I tried explaining some of this to my parents as they are getting a laptop, but its quite hard to put into words

yes they are slower, but maybe a lot better than a faster chip

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 28 Feb 2007, 17:38

Yi wrote:I have much lower specs than Tom, but I can most definately watch hi def apple trailers

Depends on what software you use and how power-hungry it is.

You could probably watch 1080p trailers with a 1.6 ghz CPU via VLC, but it wouldn't be as good as Media Player Classic.

What's your CPU, Yi ?

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 28 Feb 2007, 20:44

romerojpg wrote:Its a strange thing the whole clock speed thing, as in reality some people with brand new duel core chips may not be able to play some new games, as they dont have enuff Ghz to them.

Those older games weren't written to take advantage of multi-core processors. Eg Half-Life 2's Source engine is not getting multi-core support until Episode 2 comes out later this year.

Doom 3 for instance has high specs even now years later.

Actually the Doom 3 engine was written from the ground-up with multi-core processing at mind. John Carmack is always looking to the future.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 01 Mar 2007, 00:26

tom2681 wrote:
Yi wrote:I have much lower specs than Tom, but I can most definately watch hi def apple trailers
Depends on what software you use and how power-hungry it is.

You could probably watch 1080p trailers with a 1.6 ghz CPU via VLC, but it wouldn't be as good as Media Player Classic.

What's your CPU, Yi ?

I have an AMD Athlon 64 3200+, with 2 Ghz and 1 Gb of DDR Ram.

I just checked out if my earlier statement was still true, so I went to apple.com/trailers and checked out the 1080p high-res trailer for Children of Men. Fills out much more then my whole screen, and although it takes a little while to load, as in it occasionally pauses, it looks and plays perfectly. Without the rest of my system becoming slow or anything.

I watch it through quicktime, obviously, as for me that's the best quality.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 01 Mar 2007, 07:39

tom2681 wrote:Depends on what software you use and how power-hungry it is.

You could probably watch 1080p trailers with a 1.6 ghz CPU via VLC, but it wouldn't be as good as Media Player Classic.

What's your CPU, Yi ?

And how much crap you have in the background, how bloated your Windows install is.

Tom as we know wipes his XP install daily

As for overclocking　I've never been sure if it's worth it. How greater is the risk of damage percentage wise when you overclock? As yet I've never bothered.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 01 Mar 2007, 10:37

bradavon wrote:How greater is the risk of damage percentage wise when you overclock? As yet I've never bothered.

From what I've heard, it's very safe to overclock C2D's. I don't really understand why they made the stock clock speeds so low on these multi-core processors.

I lucked out on my parts, I did next to zero research when I had this PC assembled and wound up with one of the most overclockable socket 775 motherboards around (Gigabyte GA-965P-S3); a highly-rated aftermarket CPU cooler by the most revered cooler brand around - Zalman and one of the most hackable DVD burners around today, Asus DRW-1608P3S - really an OEM Pioneer DVR-111. The hacked firmware which I cross-flashed turned it into a DVR-111L with Labelflash and DiscT@2 functions, auto-bitsetting and disabled the Riplock (and the firmware naturally made the drive RPC-1 too).

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 01 Mar 2007, 17:41

Yi-Long wrote:
I just checked out if my earlier statement was still true, so I went to apple.com/trailers and checked out the 1080p high-res trailer for Children of Men. Fills out much more then my whole screen, and although it takes a little while to load, as in it occasionally pauses, it looks and plays perfectly. Without the rest of my system becoming slow or anything.

I watch it through quicktime, obviously, as for me that's the best quality.

Stuttering and jumping etc is ussually not down to your PC, its down to the fact you have your monitor/TFT on the wrong setting, apprently you have to have your screen on its optimal resolution for HD things to work perfectly

so if your screen is 1280x1024 (for instance) pixels at its highest reolution, set it to that for watching HD and it may iron out the bugs

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 30 Mar 2007, 00:44

AMD X2 4600+.
Stock speed: 2,4 ghz (x 2).
Overclocked: 2.592 ghz (x 2).

OK, so it's slower than my previous CPU but it's got two cores.

Hoping to reach 2,65 ghz soon.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 30 Mar 2007, 19:44

I thought you had a 3500+ so why isn't 4600+ more? Does Dual Core mean the same as have two processors?

Personally I've never bothered over clocking, except once I overclocked my Voodoo 2 to see if I could but I think I put it back. When my PC speed starts to bother me I buy a new CPU and by that point it's considerably faster anyway.

I find it very hard to believe 2.4Ghz to 2.592Ghz is noticeable at all.

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 30 Mar 2007, 19:50

I thought you had a 3500+ so why isn't 4600+ more?

Depends on how you look at it.

-I had pushed my 3500+ to 2,64 ghz.
-My new 4600+ has two cores running at 2,592 ghz.

I'm getting a 90%+ performance increase in some applications, but also a ~5% decrease with programs that don't support multi-core CPUs.

hard to believe 2.4Ghz to 2.592Ghz is noticeable at all.

Trust me, even a 10 mhz difference is noticeable when you need a lot of processing power.

Does Dual Core mean the same as have two processors?

Kinda. It's one CPU on top of another.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 31 Mar 2007, 01:27

I thought it was one CPU but do wonder how it can beat two CPU's as that would still (relatively) offer more power.