If I see the word "overclock" or "o/c" one more time, I think I'll hurl.

[rbV5]

This thread has received the most posts within six pages. Any idea why?

People are replying in a concise fashion?

 

[UncleWai]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
I upgrade once every 5 years. That's why I buy high. If you walked up a mountainside, you might make it to the top without stopping. If you ran up the mountainside, you may have to stop a few times (crash) to catch your breathe or may even decide not to continue. Weird analogy I know, but it was the first thing to pop into my head. A lot of the work that I do is critical to my livelyhood so I need the most stable rig I can get. Crashing is not an option. Gaming is quite another subject. Who cares if your rig freaks out in the middle of a quake fest. You just restart the thing and continue playing. No harm no foul. IMO.

Keys

Try this forum, you can find more friends there

Five years ago, assuming you were using a pentium 1? No wonder why you don't like "overclocking". You never used a celeron, p3, duron, athlon tbird, athlon xp. Things change a lot. Both AMD and Intel often "underclock" their chips to sell them at a bargain price. It's better for companies to pump out the same chip and then lock the multiplier. The top of the line chips are just tested to work at that given speed. People like you pay the premium to have the chip pre-clocked. That's fine by me. It's like you are paying more taxes to the government while we still both receive the same benefit.

p.s. five years you will see a "big" performance boost from your 2.8ghz to the 10.2GHz Intel "Nehalem" with a 1200MHz FSB.

 

[Keysplayr]

10.2 GHZ!?! Whoa!!. But that falls way behind Moore's Law doesn't it? In 5 years, there are 3.3 18 month periods. So the GHZ speed should go as follows.
Currenty the fastest Mhz CPU is the Intel 3.06 GHz so: Rounding off to 3GHz. 3x2=6 6x2=12 12x2=24GHz. So According to Moore's Law, we should be at 24+ GHz in exactly 5 years. Amazing little tidbit eh? Cant imagine the benchies....
But I am sure Moore's Law has it's flaws.

Keys

 

[sash1]

"Currenty the fastest Mhz CPU is the Intel 3.06 GHz so: Rounding off to 3GHz. 3x2=6 6x2=12 12x2=24GHz. So According to Moore's Law, we should be at 24+ GHz in exactly 5 years. Amazing little tidbit eh?"

Umm, no!

"But I am sure Moore's Law has it's flaws."

It's not even a law, it's more of a prediction that's just worked up until this point.

~Aunix

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Slappy00
I dont overclock now, Infact my last OC was a celery 300a @450, that was back in the glory days of overclocking with dip-switches and a very small community that knew quite a bit about computers. Back then Intel was the only name in the game and overclocking was a way to get your money's worth b/c you were getting ripped-off anyways.Hell i remember when i used QMM to get the 8 (or was it 6) megs of ram required to load DOOMII wad. Hell back then sh!t would not run if you didnt use some hardware/software trickery.
Now overclocking is soo easy that all you need is a good motherboard and memory, you dont even need to open the case or reset your cmos manually, you have it easy. Now overclocking is a not out of necessity ( even low-end Intel and AMD cpus can run most games at an expectable level when scaled with the right hardware & dirt-cheap), but rather to garnish some sort of "respect" with their "rig".


Its too easy now, and CPUs are cheap to the point where I dont see a need to overclock to attain a minimum performance level. If someone of moderate income came to me today and said that they OC their pentium4 2.0A to get extra performance, I would ask "why" and I guarentee it would be something along the lines of: to get an extra 50fps (on top of 300) at quake 3 or 1000 pts on 3dMark.

enough of my ranting...


Stock and Stable is the way to go, dont save you bucks, but it does save you headaches.

Dude, you are way out of touch. Who the hell plays Quake 3 anymore? Nobody cares about getting 300 fps instead of 250. Have you heard of UT 2003? How about Unreal 2? How about Battlefield 1942? And those are just the games that are already out.

The current top of the line video card costs over $300. A 3.06 GHz P4 costs like $400 or $500. That is not cheap.

Playing UT 2003 at high resolution with AA and AF and all the details will tax any system available today. So the argument that cheap hardware can play any current game without overclocking is not accurate.

I overclock my system because I don't want to spend $700 for a new one and overclocking gets me from an average of 50 fps in BF 1942 up to 70. This means my minimum fps when there is a lot of action also goes up and this makes a big difference in how smooth the game plays. Yes, OC'ing is fun and provides bragging rights, but it does also increase performance noticeably in demanding apps. Especially for those of us with midrange systems.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: AunixM3
"Currenty the fastest Mhz CPU is the Intel 3.06 GHz so: Rounding off to 3GHz. 3x2=6 6x2=12 12x2=24GHz. So According to Moore's Law, we should be at 24+ GHz in exactly 5 years. Amazing little tidbit eh?"

Umm, no!

"But I am sure Moore's Law has it's flaws."

It's not even a law, it's more of a prediction that's just worked up until this point.

~Aunix

Umm, would you care to back this up? You sound pretty sure of yourself. Please, Enlighten us.
And I'll say it again. "ACCORDING TO MOORE'S LAW".. I didn't say it would actually happen did I? umm, no...

And don't be snyde...

Keys

 

[Ketchup]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
I upgrade once every 5 years... A lot of the work that I do is critical to my livelyhood so I need the most stable rig I can get. Crashing is not an option. Gaming is quite another subject. Who cares if your rig freaks out in the middle of a quake fest. You just restart the thing and continue playing. No harm no foul. IMO.

Keys

If you mentioned this in your first post, you may have gotten a little respect. If I had a computer I didn't play games on, I probably wouldn't overclock it either, as there would really be little reason too. I mean, who really cares if Microsoft Office loads a tenth of a second quicker because I am overclocked?

There is something about overclocking that gets into a computer enthusiasts blood. There is a pride felt after a successufull overclock. Although you do know your way around a PC, you apparently are not an enthusiast, you have no desire to overclock, and we are not here to make you do so.

But you have no right to tell anyone else in these forums to overclock or not. It is simply personal taste. Me overclocking my computer has no effect on you, so you therefore cannot tell me whether I should or shouldn't. Just like I have no right to tell you that you should. I can recommend you do so, but that's where everyone else in this forum knows to draw the line (In all honesty, the 2.8 and that SIS chipset aren't very good overclockers, so it is probably better off you don't overclock anyway.)

 

[Bovinicus]

Performance for free = good. There is nothing wrong with it, and I find it fun tweaking my system to the max.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: ketchup79

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
I upgrade once every 5 years... A lot of the work that I do is critical to my livelyhood so I need the most stable rig I can get. Crashing is not an option. Gaming is quite another subject. Who cares if your rig freaks out in the middle of a quake fest. You just restart the thing and continue playing. No harm no foul. IMO.

Keys

If you mentioned this in your first post, you may have gotten a little respect. If I had a computer I didn't play games on, I probably wouldn't overclock it either, as there would really be little reason too. I mean, who really cares if Microsoft Office loads a tenth of a second quicker because I am overclocked?

There is something about overclocking that gets into a computer enthusiasts blood. There is a pride felt after a successufull overclock. Although you do know your way around a PC, you apparently are not an enthusiast, you have no desire to overclock, and we are not here to make you do so.

But you have no right to tell anyone else in these forums to overclock or not. It is simply personal taste. Me overclocking my computer has no effect on you, so you therefore cannot tell me whether I should or shouldn't. Just like I have no right to tell you that you should. I can recommend you do so, but that's where everyone else in this forum knows to draw the line (In all honesty, the 2.8 and that SIS chipset aren't very good overclockers, so it is probably better off you don't overclock anyway.)

I agree with you Ketchup. But everyone was telling me that I should. And I mean everybody. I guess I just got tired of hearing it. I like my system the way it is. It is nice and fast and great for work and awsome for games. I wont tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do to their PC's. Unless they ask.
Keys

 

[jmagg]

It looks like you got the attention you wanted.

That said, I dont bother overclocking myself.

 

[mjolnir2k]

Um, this is one of the more idiotic posts I have seen, ...but +1 for my count at least!

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: mjolnir2k
Um, this is one of the more idiotic posts I have seen, ...but +1 for my count at least!

Thank you for that positive input mjolnir2k. Your a man among men. If you are indeed a man. Unless your not, in which case you'd be a woman!
If you were'nt a man.

 

[Dijay]

say I was interested in over-clocking my system........what should I do? I know nothing about it

 

[Afro000Dude]

If I'm not mistaken, Moore's Law applied to the number of transistors on a chip, not the actual clock speed. The transistor count may double in 18 months (I think that's how it goes), but the clock speeds may only go up 75%. Please don't flame me if I'm wrong.