TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Help Overclocking!

Help Overclocking!

so from my recent computer thread, i now have my setup.

would anyone be able to help me on overclocking:

i have the e6600 chip and the gigabyte GA-965P-DS3 motherboard:

clock speed 2.4ghz on the chip. I've heard it can safely be overclocked to 3.0ghz with the stock fan. Can anyone offer advice on the proper changes to make in the BIOS.

thanks!

TRY HERE

No overclocking is ever completely safe. Always do a stress test before assuming you're in the clear.

Or don't do it at all. Your processor was built to run at the clock speed it was originally set at. You're risking unnecissary stability issues.

Take it from a geek who has OC'd a lot. Even with a "stable" OC... you can STILL have issues.

I run my 3.2ghz P4 at... 3.2ghz. I can over clock it up to 3.6ghz and it will run more or less stabily. But 400mhz is not much of performance boost. In fact, it's not noticable at all.

You are much better off saving up your money, and just buying a really nice processor. It saves you the stress of potentially harming your system and your projects.

BUT. If you're absolutely dead set on OCing your system READ A LOT before you do it.

Just to name a few things, but SATA drives are sensitive to different clock speeds, your RAM will need to be tuned and tweaked with to make sure it's not getting messed up, not only does this include adjusting it's clock speed, but making sure it's CAS latency settings are correct. Crappy motherboards, and crappy ram are a bad pair, because sometimes when you OC (especially if you use a motherboards automatic OC mode, which you SHOULDN'T) it won't set your ram to it's optimal speed. And you'll risk going too fast on your ram (system won't boot) or you'll underclock your ram and you'll be defeating the purpose of overclocking in the first place.

So let me turn to my original advice. Just don't do it. Lol. Buy a quad-core, lol.

Also, Gigabyte boards have been nothing but trouble. I have fried about 4 of them without doing ANYTHING stressful to them; no overclocking, overvolataging, etc.

Go with MSI or ASUS. Ironically, ASUS is the "Acura" of Gigabyte's "Honda." Even though they are basically the exact same thing, for some reason ASUS boards are much more reliable.

---Adam Wrzeski

If you are using this machine for production, don't do it. You might get a nasty surprise in the middle of your session. I've OC'd my 3.0Ghz CPU to 3.4 once, and there was little or no observable difference in speed. There could be many things going wrong inside your CPU when overclocked, and only the manufacturer can see them, in their sophisticated labs. I know its tempting as hell to overclock, when so many people are saying that they are running my chip at 4GHz stable and getting all kinds of performance boost. They rarely say that a week later they blew their processor to hell, cause they dont want to look like fools.

Also, i would like to add, all of the semiconductor devices go bad gradually over time. While you may not directly notice it, electronic parts inside your computer slowly degrade. Their electrical propersites change. Thats why sometimes a computer that is several years old, will show strange behaviour that it didnot have when it was new. By overclocking you speed up this degradation process. So you had this CPU that was expected to function withing specs for 10 years. When you OC it, it sees more wear, and its lifespan decreases. So now, it lasts only 2 years, or worse. The processor does not have to be over heated to have its life reduced. Even if you keep it cool, there is more of electric current flowing through it when it is OC'd. That puts more stress on its components. Also, stress testing you CPU is not a best indicator that it will perform ok. When you stress test it, youre pretty much destroying it at the fastest rate possible at present configuration settings. So if it survives the test, it already may be on its last strings.

A CPU doesn't just inexplicably dissolve over time - maybe over thousands of years but not in our lifetimes. I've got equipment from 10 years ago that still runs fine. When old computers mess up, that's much more likely due to the power supply and moving parts like hard drives. Thermal damage can accelerate the process, but if you're running hot enough to cause thermal damage then it's probably already unstable.

Stress testing absolutely DOES NOT accelerate any inexplicable undocumented natural material degradation, unless in the process of the stress test you overheat the equipment to an insane degree.

I agree with the "don't OC" sentiment, and it's also true that a stress test won't prove that your computer is stable. It will, however, tell you if it's definitely unstable. Dual instances (for dual core) of Prime95 running in-place FFTs for about 15 minutes usually reveals any problems with CPU stability, and Blend mode overnight tests the memory pretty well. Again - doesn't prove that you're fine, but often does tell you if there's a problem.

quote:

A CPU doesn't just inexplicably dissolve over time - maybe over thousands of years but not in our lifetimes. I've got equipment from 10 years ago that still runs fine. When old computers mess up, that's much more likely due to the power supply and moving parts like hard drives. Thermal damage can accelerate the process, but if you're running hot enough to cause thermal damage then it's probably already unstable.

You are not exactly right. While CPU does not "dissolve", the electrical properties of its components change. I used 10 years number as an example and not a fact. Here is some good info on consequneces of overclocking:

Overclocking will make your cpu work much harder and the temperature will increase. Then your PC may overheat and become unstable which will cause system crashes. If your overclocked processor does work for a time, its days are probably numbered because electromigration (interconnect failure) will eventually destroy your cpu. Of course it may not happen at all - you may discard the CPU before failure occurs. Overclocking simply raises the odds against your CPU fulfilling its' lifetime duration. Obviously a soon to be replaced computer is a prime candidate for excessive overclocking. Source: http://www.inboost.com/pc-boost/cpu-booster.html

The other "danger" of overclocking is that it can reduce the lifespan of your components. When you run more voltage through a component, it's lifespan decreases. A small boost won't have much of an affect, but if you plan on using a large overclock, you will want to be aware of the decrease in lifespan. This is not usually an issue, however, since anybody that is overclocking likely will not be using the same components for more than 4-5 years, and it is unlikely that any of your components will fail before 4-5 years regardless of how much voltage you run through it. Most processors are designed to last for up to 10 years, so losing a few of those years is usually worth the increase in performance in the mind of an overclocker
source: http://www.tqnyc.org/NYC063388/Intel_Clocking.html


I've read a very good article a while back written by an electronics engineer from intel i believe, but i cant find it anywhere. It explained everything i am trying to say in great detail over several pages. You have to have good knowlege of semiconductor electronics to understand what i am trying to say here.

Wrong forums for this really, head over to the overclockers.co.uk forums or neowin.net to speak to the hardware guys on this.

Also if you're dead set on overclocking make sure you get a really nifty cooling system inside that thing.

Like the other guys though.. I wouldn't bother if I were you.

I OC'ed my E6600 to 3.2ghz on stock cooling. Wasn't stable and no overclocking is stable.

When I later put in a Tuniq Tower 120 I could get it up to 3.6ghz with stable temperatures, but afterwards after breaking it in a bit and running Counter Strike it'd basically freeze at random points.

So I said screw it and run at stock 2.4 which is more than enough in my opinion.

I'll save the instability rants as there are plenty for you to read.

The one comment I would like to make is, think about how much power you already have with the E6600. Do you really think you need any extra juice out of it? I understand back in the days of single-core processors but this is a sweet-ass Core2Duo you have. If you need more juice, step up to a quad-core. Do you think you're going to need to OC that, too?

alright, well the general concensus is to not fuck with it. I think that may be wise. The e6600 is definitely a sweet chip, so it should do me fine. When running programs like east west symphonic orchestra, and some other equally demanding apps, it is possible to actually push the system to its limits. A little extra juice definitely sounded tempting, but i guess it comes at a price.

Symphonic Orchestra and other sample-based instruments aren't going to work the CPU too much. They're memory- and disk-intensive and so you should have plenty of the former and a fast hard drive if possible.

Keep in mind that the "slower" processors in a certain line are the ones which failed certain tests in QA. That doesn't mean they're defective or anything, just means that they might have had to disable some of the L2 cache or lower the clock speed to get it stable. When they test the chips in the lab, they're looking at them through a microscope (figuratively) and so you may never notice the problems that they found at higher clock speeds. On the other hand, you might. It's a gamble, and what works fine for one E6600 may not work for another E6600 because it's all based on an imperfect manufacturing process.

Some people believe that AMD and Intel deliberately underclock a bunch of chips, just so they'll have an artificial "midrange" product to sell (as in a type of market segmentation). I don't work for Intel, but I find that argument economically unsound. It's possible that they just don't bother to test the majority of chips at higher clock speeds, because the tests are expensive to run and they figure that only a limited market will buy those anyway, but that's pure speculation and there's absolutely no evidence in favour of it.

So overclocking is fine, in theory, but it's really something for enthusiasts who enjoy tweaking their PCs, whereas most of us just want to get on with our work and would prefer the guarantee of stability. As for me personally, I'm running everything completely passive so I'm not even going to try to OC.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.