Overclocking Over the limit

Last edited by kahrn on Mon May 16, 2005 3:18 pm; edited 1 time in total

I dont know how many of you actually overclock, but I for one overclock and im about to try and push my CeleronD cpu past 4ghz (original speed 2.8), and run it stable for at least 2 days.

I'll report back if it works :D

Oh, and I dont want to be alone... Surely we can have a little bit of competition, say first one to reach 4.6ghz stable for 24 hours? :P

Bring it. B)

Btw, nice OC on the Celeron-D.

I think most of us overclock bro. 99% of us use AMD 64 or fx 64 thow. Dont you think geting a P4 would be a good idea ?

even at 4.5 GHz a 3.2 GHz P 4 would beat it by a great deal . cache makes a huge difrence.

if you realy want to get hard into overclock then get AMD 64 or FX 64. then you can custom overclock high and stable.

Yes, good point. And if you want a cheaper solution, then go for an Athlon XP-M, preferrably with unlocked multipliers.

But, Athlon 64's are the king. B)

Last edited by kahrn on Tue May 24, 2005 10:10 am; edited 1 time in total

This is true, it would be better to overclock using a Athlon64 or similar build, but thats not what I want to do it with, but maybe in the future I will.

I wouldnt really say athlon-64s are king, as far as I am concerned they are highly over-rated, and everyone seems to want one without having a clue exactly what the differences are, despite the fact that most of them dont use windowsXP 64bit edition, and longhorn isnt out yet.. and I dont know of many 64bit applications that use the cpu effectively, as far as I am concerened people are expecting more from athlon 64's right now at this very point in time, but there won't huge difference until programmers take advantage of it, and to take advantage of it it also needs to be for the right reasons, such as encoding (which seems to be a 64's weak spot atm)

Anyways, I have my reasons for doing it on a celeronD.

Last edited by PCGEEK on Tue May 24, 2005 12:00 pm; edited 1 time in total

overrated how ? my benchmarks and in game FPS and memory bandidth are GOD next to the limited Intel. heck you can take a $3000.00 intel system and put it next to a $2000.00 AMD 64 system and the AMD system will out game the Intel 2 to 1 . This is fact.

The point to AMD 64 isnt just 64 bit bro. There HTT lays waste to Intels limited FSB . I run my HTT @ 2.1 GHz and superxp is even higher i think. The AMD 64 HTT is part of the memory controler and is why the AMD 64 memory bandwidth and laytency timings are so crazy fast.

In games like Half Life 2, an Athlon 64 3000+ has been shown to have more FPS than a Pentium 4 Prescott Extreme Edition 3.8GHz.

Also, the Prescott had to be overclocked to 5.2GHz to beat the FX-55 2.6GHz.

In gaming and most office-related programs, AMD has the upper hand. Even for video rendering, I believe AMD has the upper hand. But for media encoding, sound effects, and multimedia in general, Intel has the upper hand.

Of course, most people would rather take an AMD which is cheaper and has better gaming, than an Intel which is more expensive and performs less in gaming.

As kahrn said, it all depends on whether people want multimedia or gaming.

Besides, kahrn made a good choice taking a Celeron to overclock, as opposed to a Pentium IV Prescott. Prescott's are VERY expensive and generate lots of heat.

umm bro your talking about the guy who had a 3.9 Ghz P 4 E and traded up to 3500+. I did do every test posible. I am talking from exsperiance here.