WTF! BAN! LOL
It won't give you that big of a difference, but it's not really about getting a few more FPS, It's about actually overclocking and testing your chip. At least to me.
WTF! BAN! LOL
It won't give you that big of a difference, but it's not really about getting a few more FPS, It's about actually overclocking and testing your chip. At least to me.
depends on what you do really ? might get mre fps and less time encoding but fps would really be limited by that 6600 anyway so hardly matters
Yeah i know my Vid kinda suks, but I couldnt afford to upgrade that too as i just spent 600 bucks upgrading the cpu board and ram. But hey its still a decent card and havent had too much performance loss for the current games..
Its significant when you measure the difference, but in common everyday usage there probably is no difference. Afterall, webpages only open so fast. OC'ing for me improves the price/performance ratio, which is always good. Kinda like getting a 6% raise when you make $50K. Probably wont notice it on your paycheck, but no one is going refuse it.
If you're comparing Intel clock speeds vs. AMD clockspeeds, I can see where you might think that it's not as important to AMD.
What's actually going on there is that the pipeline structure for instructions is far different for each company. Intel went with a deeper instruction set (31 depp if I recall) and what happens is they can go higher in clockspeeds with it, but do less work per cycle because of the many steps each instrution has to follow to execute.
AMD, on the other hand went with a different way of thinking, and did a much more shloow pipeline (either 13 or 18, I think). This allowed them to do more work per clock cycle, but limited the clocking ability somewhat.
Trying to directly compare clock speeds of Intel to that of AMD is a true apples to oranges comparison. Enter the A64, and it gets a little fuzzier yet. I'd take a 1.8GHz or 2.0GHz A64 over an Athlon XP @ 2.4 to 2.6 any day. Again, AMD trys to get more work done per clock cycle, instead of just making the existing architecture go faster.
Now there are a lot smarter people on this site than I am, and I'm sure some terminology corrections will follow, but this is the gist of it.
Hope this sheds a little light.
What's actually going on there is that the pipeline structure for instructions is far different for each company. Intel went with a deeper instruction set (31 depp if I recall) and what happens is they can go higher in clockspeeds with it, but do less work per cycle because of the many steps each instrution has to follow to execute.
AMD, on the other hand went with a different way of thinking, and did a much more shloow pipeline (either 13 or 18, I think). This allowed them to do more work per clock cycle, but limited the clocking ability somewhat.
Trying to directly compare clock speeds of Intel to that of AMD is a true apples to oranges comparison. Enter the A64, and it gets a little fuzzier yet. I'd take a 1.8GHz or 2.0GHz A64 over an Athlon XP @ 2.4 to 2.6 any day. Again, AMD trys to get more work done per clock cycle, instead of just making the existing architecture go faster.
Now there are a lot smarter people on this site than I am, and I'm sure some terminology corrections will follow, but this is the gist of it.
Hope this sheds a little light.
If anything, overclocking to a higher clock speed helps Athlon 64s more than it would a Pentium 4 (or all the new nomenclature they're using for P4 based chips such as the the Ds). The bus speeds aren't that much of a limiting factor. Look at the AM2 memory preview on the front page right now. Even with low latency DDR2-800, AM2 only gets a small performance boost over DDR400 in real applications (benchmarks will show it, but they mean little to nothing most of the time).
Just because Intel made clock speeds the holy grail and then switched their mantra doesn't mean they're useless. A 25% increase in clock speeds still translates into a nice performance boost fairly close to 25% depending on what it is that you're doing (if its a CPU heavy task then it should show a nice increase, if its games that are reliant on the video card then not so much).
I'm not sure where this clock speeds don't matter anymore idea is coming from, but I hear it quite a bit anymore. If it was possible for them to, both AMD and Intel would be still ramping up clock speeds, but they can't.
And yes, Kahnabus, you need to chill out. You remind me of several other newer people here who get defensive over everything. Don't take things so personally.
Just because Intel made clock speeds the holy grail and then switched their mantra doesn't mean they're useless. A 25% increase in clock speeds still translates into a nice performance boost fairly close to 25% depending on what it is that you're doing (if its a CPU heavy task then it should show a nice increase, if its games that are reliant on the video card then not so much).
I'm not sure where this clock speeds don't matter anymore idea is coming from, but I hear it quite a bit anymore. If it was possible for them to, both AMD and Intel would be still ramping up clock speeds, but they can't.
And yes, Kahnabus, you need to chill out. You remind me of several other newer people here who get defensive over everything. Don't take things so personally.
I dont need to do anything. you people are the ones getting all up in arms cause I asked a question that almost threw you for a loop. I have my opinion and it still stands. I overclocked my system and the difference was not enough to make it worth it to overclock.. So all you f***ing overclocking goons with nothing better to do but see how fast you can fry your chip need to step the F*** up off me, sorry I hurt your feelings by going aginst your geek morals and asked a question that goes against all your rules.. LOL you people are the ones who need to chill out..
Plain and simple, Its not worth it to take a chance at frying a $300 chip and possibly more just to gain a little performance that my system doesnt even need. Get a life and a girlfriend and maybe that damn thing your staring at will become less attractive to you...
AND NO I DONT NEED TO CHILL OUT... LOL... friggin losers..
To those of you who actually tried to answer my question, I thank you very much for your help.
To those of you who just wanted to give your opinion on how wrong I am. Suck it.
My opteron 170 is doing 2.8 @ 1.45v (testing 2.9)
At least a 800 mhz OC! 40% OC
Definitely worh it
At least a 800 mhz OC! 40% OC
Definitely worh it
Indeed, as an example of how not to accept help and the occasional sarcastic comment it's perfect.
Kahnabus, if you can't take a little sarcasm then you should stay off the internet.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 373
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter