A challenge for those who are talented enough, focused enough, and crazy enough...

Sp33d

Member
Feb 13, 2005
181
0
0
All members of AA: I propose a challenge.

With the recent discovery of the jumper oc'ing of a mac mini, I want to see who can get the best overclock on any apple produced after 2002. There is no prize, only bragging rights for being in the select few who take part in this challenge and succeed in other forums. Good luck participants, and I will be checking this every day. If you are participating, you must pm me to say that you are trying, and show screenshots of your work at the end. As usual, the oc only counts if OSX boots stably
 

Sp33d

Member
Feb 13, 2005
181
0
0
three categories: highest clock, highest percent overclock, and highest difference between the original and oc'd speeds
 

Sp33d

Member
Feb 13, 2005
181
0
0
no. Theoretically you could have a 10 mhz cpu and oc it to 20 mhz, and that'd be a 100% oc. But having a 1.8 Ghz CPU and oc'ing it to 2.8Ghz is a 1 Ghz oc, but still not a 100% oc
 

Screech

Golden Member
Oct 20, 2004
1,202
6
81
no. OCing (for example, not reality) 200mhz to 400mhz = 50% OC. Ocing 250mhz to 500 mhz is still 50% but is bigger difference.

ouch, im slow :eek:

back on topic: sounds cool, but i don't have any macs....
 

Sp33d

Member
Feb 13, 2005
181
0
0
also, a 200 to 400 is 100% because:

difference(200)=original(200)x

if x= a whole number, then convert it to a percentage.

Therefore,

200=200*1
and
1=100%

I'm glad that you think this sounds good, so spread it. I think that if we can find feasible oc's, macs will be an alternative frontier, because intel is getting too headstrong and will fail in the next 100 years, and with them being the best video capture cpus for pc, a mac would easily replace and outperform it.

BTW, i am a mac and pc fan
 

Amaroque

Platinum Member
Jan 2, 2005
2,178
0
0
Originally posted by: screech
no. OCing (for example, not reality) 200mhz to 400mhz = 50% OC. Ocing 250mhz to 500 mhz is still 50% but is bigger difference.

ouch, im slow :eek:

back on topic: sounds cool, but i don't have any macs....

200 to 400 would be a 100% increase. 250 to 500 would also be a 100% increase.

200 to 300 would be a 50% increase. 250 to 375 would also be a 50% increase. ;)
 

Sp33d

Member
Feb 13, 2005
181
0
0
why would mac overclocking be useless? the strong point of intel is video editing, coding, and media production, and macs are better than pcs in all of those categories. That's like saying "lets overclock our 580J to 4.6 ghz with phase cooling just to let us make videos a little better!" That is pointless.
 

Screech

Golden Member
Oct 20, 2004
1,202
6
81
Originally posted by: Amaroque
Originally posted by: screech
no. OCing (for example, not reality) 200mhz to 400mhz = 50% OC. Ocing 250mhz to 500 mhz is still 50% but is bigger difference.

ouch, im slow :eek:

back on topic: sounds cool, but i don't have any macs....

200 to 400 would be a 100% increase. 250 to 500 would also be a 100% increase.

200 to 300 would be a 50% increase. 250 to 375 would also be a 50% increase. ;)

Shoot me. please.
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
Originally posted by: Sp33d
why do you think mac ocing is useless?

"Unfortunately, Mac World of Warcraft performance is nothing to write home about. Performance on a dual G5 2.5GHz with an ATI Radeon X800 XT Mac Edition is less than half of the performance of a single Athlon 64 4000+ and a Radeon X800 XT. The performance on slower video cards is just as disappointing. Blizzard has been active in improving Mac WoW performance, but the gap remains to be nothing short of huge. Mac OS X has never been known as a gaming platform of choice, but Mac users should at least be able to run the games to which they do have access at comparable frame rates to their PC counterparts. " - Anandtech

Given that a lot of people on this forum are gamers, a Mac in general will not suit them. Secondly, given that A64 is just as fast, has 64-bit support and is cheaper, it comes pretty hard to get ppl excited about a $3000 slow Mac system.
 

Sp33d

Member
Feb 13, 2005
181
0
0
it seems neither an intel nor an apple were built for gaming, so why not just oc a mac for video editing? Got a problem with that?
 

Amaroque

Platinum Member
Jan 2, 2005
2,178
0
0
Originally posted by: Sp33d
it seems neither an intel nor an apple were built for gaming, so why not just oc a mac for video editing? Got a problem with that?

The P4, and A64 solutions have surpassed the Mac in photo, and video editing...

Who in their rite mind want's to spend double the money on a Mac that is slower (even at video editing) then a high end mainstream PC.
 

bersl2

Golden Member
Aug 2, 2004
1,617
0
0
Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Originally posted by: Sp33d
why do you think mac ocing is useless?

"Unfortunately, Mac World of Warcraft performance is nothing to write home about. Performance on a dual G5 2.5GHz with an ATI Radeon X800 XT Mac Edition is less than half of the performance of a single Athlon 64 4000+ and a Radeon X800 XT. The performance on slower video cards is just as disappointing. Blizzard has been active in improving Mac WoW performance, but the gap remains to be nothing short of huge. Mac OS X has never been known as a gaming platform of choice, but Mac users should at least be able to run the games to which they do have access at comparable frame rates to their PC counterparts. " - Anandtech

Given that a lot of people on this forum are gamers, a Mac in general will not suit them. Secondly, given that A64 is just as fast, has 64-bit support and is cheaper, it comes pretty hard to get ppl excited about a $3000 slow Mac system.

It's different for every game. The code is optimized to hell for one platform, which has to be changed. (Note: I'm only talking about games so far.)

I'd like to take this opportunity to repeat the assertion that gaming on Mac and Linux would be economical if developers made a few simple design decisions to greatly enhance portability, allowing the porting houses that license the code to spend more time optimizing for the different platform, for example, using OpenGL instead of Direct3D, or not using VC++-specific assembly constructs (coughDoom3cough).

And as for the expensive Mac hardware, Apple kills itself there. I'd love to see inexpensive 970FX motherboards, tweakable x86-style, but that might as well be the definition of a pipe dream. :D