I think it's safe to say i7 920 is the Celeron 300A of 2009

[sgrinavi]

Did I get the only lemon in USA?

Mine will go 3.8 and stay cool, but not 100% stable. Fahgetabout 4.0

 

[2March]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Who knew such a light-hearted analogy for recognizing what one can do with an i7 920 would invoke such a defense against attempting such recognition. Like it was really intended to generate a debate.

The OP owned many 300A's, if she wants to conclude in her opinion that a 920 today is like owning a 300A 10yrs ago then who is to stay her opinion is wrong/invalid/misplaced?

She's speaks from firsthand experience, reading this thread and the nitpicking it incited in some folks I really have to wonder if they personally owned either a 300A or an i7 920.

It's a discussion forum. When you make a statement you'll get reactions. For me it's all in good jest though. I just bring in, like many others, reasons why or why not.

I don't understand why people complain about discussions in a discussion forum. Nitpicking on the technicalities of these chips is what we do here. It's the processor sub, for heavens sake

 

[cubeless]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: lopri
I think it's safe to say not many people know/remember Celeron 300A in 2009.

I hope that not's true...1998 feels like yesterday to me.

i feel the same way... too bad it's because of old age dementia...

and i'm deaf, too, from all those screaming 60mm fans that we used to have to strap to the old swiftech heatsinks...

oc'ing is much more genteel nowadays...

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: sgrinavi
Did I get the only lemon in USA?

Mine will go 3.8 and stay cool, but not 100% stable. Fahgetabout 4.0

I think the more likely answer is that people are simply lying about their overclocking abilities. I'll give you an example of how this works. The computer I'm using right now (not an i7) can go up to 3.5ghz and still boot into Windows. The computer appears to work good. It can even play games. Should I say that I have successfully overclocked to 3.5ghz? The answer is no because what I didn't mention is that it gets Prime95 math errors when running higher than 3.0ghz. I would say this CPU was successfully overclocked to 3.0ghz, but quite a few people would go with the 3.5ghz number. This isn't just restricted to complete retards. Even half-retards do this.

Tom's Hardware attempts overclocking, fails.

posted by Chris Angelini, Tom's Hardware
Dropping down to 3.8 GHz with a 19x multiplier allowed us to boot into Windows, but starting any of our benchmarks resulted in a quick crash. We then tried 18.5x, yielding 3.7 GHz. At that speed (and after increasing the processor voltage to 1.625 V?which was far higher than we?d leave the system running), we were able to complete most synthetic and gaming benchmarks. But Call of Duty and the productivity-oriented tests just wouldn?t stabilize. We settled for 3.64 GHz by dropping the multiplier to 18 and adding 2 MHz to the reference clock (allowing us to also drop the voltage down to 1.6 V). That?s a better overclock than we ever saw with the 65 nm Phenoms, but not quite what we were hoping for with Phenom II.

Do you see what I'm talking about? He never tested whether or not the overclock is getting math errors.

Just wait a few days and people like that start posting crap like "OMG WINDOZE CRASHES SO MUCH!!"

 

[ExcaliburMM]

Uh, E2140 100% OC. 1.6Ghz to 3.2Ghz. Remind me of another CPU that did a 100% OC?

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: 2March

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Who knew such a light-hearted analogy for recognizing what one can do with an i7 920 would invoke such a defense against attempting such recognition. Like it was really intended to generate a debate.

The OP owned many 300A's, if she wants to conclude in her opinion that a 920 today is like owning a 300A 10yrs ago then who is to stay her opinion is wrong/invalid/misplaced?

She's speaks from firsthand experience, reading this thread and the nitpicking it incited in some folks I really have to wonder if they personally owned either a 300A or an i7 920.

It's a discussion forum. When you make a statement you'll get reactions. For me it's all in good jest though. I just bring in, like many others, reasons why or why not.

I don't understand why people complain about discussions in a discussion forum. Nitpicking on the technicalities of these chips is what we do here. It's the processor sub, for heavens sake

Thanks for stating the obvious. I had forgotten where I was, what I was posting about, and why I was posting it.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: sgrinavi
Did I get the only lemon in USA?

Mine will go 3.8 and stay cool, but not 100% stable. Fahgetabout 4.0

I think the more likely answer is that people are simply lying about their overclocking abilities.

Just wait a few days and people like that start posting crap like "OMG WINDOZE CRASHES SO MUCH!!"

oh really...

so my 4.3ghz /w HT ON, 24/7 that passes linpack and OCCT is lying about its overclock?

http://i125.photobucket.com/al...gomorla/Capture-10.jpg

oh i should note this is Haruhi.

http://i125.photobucket.com/al...la/Haruhi/IMG_1385.jpg

 

[ShawnD1]

http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewth...2005/04/12/407562.aspx

A bunch of us were going through some Windows crashes that people sent in by clicking the "Send Error Report" button in the crash dialog. And there were huge numbers of them that made no sense whatsoever. For example, there would be code sequences like this:

mov ecx, dword ptr [someValue]
mov eax, dword ptr [otherValue]
cmp ecx, eax
jnz generateErrorReport

Yet when we looked at the error report, the ecx and eax registers were equal! There were other crashes of a similar nature, where the CPU simply lots its marbles and did something "impossible".
[...]
For both groups, he suggested that they stop overclocking or at least not overclock as aggressively. And in all cases, the people reported that their computer that used to crash regularly now runs smoothly.

Moral of the story: There's a lot of overclocking out there, and it makes Windows look bad.

You'll notice that he titled his post as "There's an awful lot of overclocking out there" because this is a very frequent problem. There's an astounding number of people who don't know what the hell they are doing, and they're the same kind of people who join sites like this and say that their computer wouldn't boot at 3.80ghz so they had to lower it to 3.79ghz. It doesn't help when hundreds and maybe even thousands of people read Chris's article on Tom's Hardware and think that being able to play COD for a few minutes counts as stable.

As for your water cooled system, you could probably check whether or not I'm right about how much space there is between stable and not being able to boot. You're at 4.3 right now, but you could probably push it an extra 200 or 300mhz before the computer won't boot. That's the unstable region that so many people are sitting in, so when they say their air cooled system runs at 4.1ghz, remember to take it with a grain of salt.

 

[Allio]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
oh really...

so my 4.3ghz /w HT ON, 24/7 that passes linpack and OCCT is lying about its overclock?

http://i125.photobucket.com/al...gomorla/Capture-10.jpg

oh i should note this is Haruhi.

http://i125.photobucket.com/al...la/Haruhi/IMG_1385.jpg

1) Is that not a 975, not a 920? Unless CPU-Z now misreports model name when overclocked, which I'm not aware of it doing. A CPU costing that much has no place in this thread.

2) Anecdotal evidence of a fantastic overclock isn't evidence of anything. People read people's reports on the internet, which generally are a little exaggerated and misleading, and naturally only represent the extreme end of the spectrum. They then form the impression that they can expect x overclock with y CPU out of the box from the computer store. Then they bring it home, fall 400mhz short of that and feel ripped off. The quoted example was someone thinking he got a lemon because his 2.66ghz chip wouldn't do more than 3.8! Hell I got a 1700+ TBred B that's not happy at 1.66ghz. It's overclocking. Nothing is guaranteed.

(Except 450mhz on the 300A)

 

[2March]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Thanks for stating the obvious. I had forgotten where I was, what I was posting about, and why I was posting it.

No problem m8.
More then happy to help

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Allio

1) Is that not a 975, not a 920? Unless CPU-Z now misreports model name when overclocked, which I'm not aware of it doing. A CPU costing that much has no place in this thread.

heh... u obviously dont know me by now...

http://i125.photobucket.com/al.../aigomorla/Linpack.jpg

happy?

Aigo not having both the floor model and high model of CPU's is wierd. :X

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: Allio

1) Is that not a 975, not a 920? Unless CPU-Z now misreports model name when overclocked, which I'm not aware of it doing. A CPU costing that much has no place in this thread.

heh... u obviously dont know me by now...

http://i125.photobucket.com/al.../aigomorla/Linpack.jpg

happy?

Aigo not having both the floor model and high model of CPU's is wierd. :X

Perhaps the subject should be updated to i720 D0.

 

[roid450]

I had never in my life heard of the Celeron 300a :Q

I have to agree with the e5200 and q6600 tho, OC very nicely

 

[Matt1970]

I had a 300A. That is what lead me to Tom's Hardware Page. He showed which pin you could block, or cut the run if you dared to get it to identify as a 100MHz Bus. That wasn't my first overclock. I had a 166MMX that would run at 200. After my 300A I went with a Celeron 900 that was a little disappointing since it would only run at 1100. From there I did some homework and got one of the P4 2.4c chips that ran at 3.4GHz. I haven't done much overclocking since then, although I do remember playing around with one of the Celeron 2.0 chips that finally failed at 3.3GHz. I ended up giving it to my dad and he is still running it today at 2.8

 

[Stas]

x2 3800+ was nice, too. 2.0 to 2.8Ghz isn't bad. First processor was 460Mhz Celeron. Didn't get a chance to play with 300A until 2005 when school was throwing old H/W out. I got it home just for the sake of o/c, knowing about thier history. Always been fascinated with h/w. Still have some P-IIIs laying around. 933Mhz @ 1200. and 1100Mhz @ 1.33Ghz.

 

[ther00kie16]

yea... the e2100 series is great at pulling off ~100% overclocks. so are some of the celerons from the past 2 years if anyone still pays attention to those. Also, didn't the e6300 ($183 at launch) overclocked to its max on stock cooler beat the x6800 ($1000) in just about everything? It's too difficult for a budget cpu to match performance of top of the line cpus anymore because top of the line will be quad core at high clocks while budget cpus are dual cores. I suppose if you are one of the handful of people that got a Kuma that magically unlocked to a Phenom 2, that would place it in the same realm of some of the other budget Goliath slayers.