Neowin.net

Haha fair enough, but DDR3 seems cool: just clock your Penryn @ 4.26 GHz and run 2:1 timings. It's too bad that memory bandwidth isn't what slows our computars these days.

+1

Why don't you tell us about some hobbies of yours, and we'll try our best to trivialize it.

You can learn a lot about how hardwares work when overclocking components. I think a lot of people do it because it's fun.

obviously a post from a child. Why pay $1,000 when my $200 cpu is faster? Lets go waste an extra $800 to have slower parts. Get a clue newb cake.

LOL....I can understand it being a hobby for some...but the vast majority look at this as permanant fix and then later whine about 'blue screens' and 'over-heating'...Ram gone bad or Won't boot. If you can afford the hobby thats great..but how many explain to mom and dad the real reason why they need have them buy another CPU etc etc.

"Mom...I plugged the hair-dryer into 220v socket because I thought it would dry my hair faster but it melted it..."

Last edited by jwjw1 on 29 Feb 2008 - 21:35

Its people like you that ruin the world. If I didn't know anything about the subject I would probably believe you because your good at sounding like you know what your talking about. The truth is overclocking is easy and can save you hundreds of dollars. I was able to overclock a 78 dollar 1.6 ghz proc to 2.4 with a stock cooler I read with a good third party cooler I could get it to 3 easy. As for kids having their parents pay for parts they broke I think thats kinda the beauty of being a young computer nerd the best way to learn is by trial and error. Its people like you who shoot their mouth off and ruin it for them lol.

you dont get it do you? we look down on these blue screens and overheating that you talk about... its not an overclock if its not stable, its called making your mom and dad buy you a new cpu etc etc

Find me a Core 2 Duo Processor that ships at about 4Ghz (or more). You underestimate how far these current processors can overclock on cheap air cooling. People arent taking these things from 2.2Ghz to 2.5, theyre doing ALOT more.

I have my eye on an upcomming Q9450 for instance which ships at 2.66GHz. It's widely regarded that this CPU should be able to get to 3.6GHz and if your Mobo can manage a FSB of 500Mhz, 4GHz should be possible. Thats far beyond anything Intel currently ships, especialy in the quad core field and it's a substantually cheaper CPU than the slightly faster Q9550 (which is at 2.8Ghz or so)

I've had my CPU overclocked by 400 MHz for 8 months now, no problems.

My Athlon 64 is overclocked 600mhz fine. Hey, it's a free upgrade.

jwjw1's ignorance is almost as astounding as Bill Clinton's "well it depends on what your definition of is, is" defense.

I agree. Come on people please stop flaming.

thats the issue, price. These things are already WAY faster than most people really need. For mainstream DDR2 @800Mhz is fast enough and for most others I'm sure 1066Mhz will do. I cant even imagine that many enthusiast requiring ram of these speeds but then again, I don't deny its not good to have it there either.

But price is the issue and I'd personally like to see them concentrate on making the slower chips cheaper, or at least have a "value" line so that adoption of the new ram is more feasable and as soon as that happens it will drive prices down accross the board.

Really with the ram costing almost twice as much as DDR2 its not even a smart move to buy it for future proofing since by the time you do need if that 1 or 2GB dimm will likely be relatively small and the price gap over DDR2 too large.

I think theres some benefit. Say you had a Mobo capable of a FSB of 500 but had a CPU currently at 400 and DDR2 800 (400x2). If you can get a stable performance from both the cpu and ram running them at 500Hz (in the case of ddr that'll be 500x2 so 1000 as opposed to the default 800) then it would allow you to run the cpu faster through an overclock of the ram. Sure, you may take a hit in ram latency but the added benefit of the cpu running considerably faster (given it would be 100Hz in this example multiplied by the CPU's multiplier...so probably verging on a 800Hz - 1Ghz gain) would probably outweight the loss in the ram latency.

I don't admittedly know alot about overclocking but I think thats one scenario where youd gain from losening the latency and increasing the clock. Don't know if those above numbers are necessarily accurate either but they are just for the example. Personally I'd just buy the faster ram from the get go and save myself the trouble.

there were indeed tests of high mhz at loose latencies vs low mhz at tight latencies... they said that in general , high mhz wins out but there were a few special 'theoretical' apps which benefited from tight timings