o/c windows 7

[jasin]

You are right, there is a difference... but I don't think it's as obvious to someone else as it might be to you or I.

Very true, sir. After about 2 GHz, or so, I don't think that someone who isn't looking for the differences, or benchmarking would really be able to tell.

Most people don't need all that cpu anyways. You dont need 3ghz, or even 2ghz really, to check email, chat on here, search on google, etc.

 

[Mellon Head]

That's true. My wife's machine only has an Athlon X2 4000 in it, and she does fine for what she does with it.

I do a fair bit of CPU intensive work with mine, so having more than 3 GHz is good for me, and maybe for someone really into gaming, but I agree. The average user is on Facebook, and checking email, and doing other, low demand things, making more than 2 GHZ just overkill.

 

[fastslvblkcar]

well i got my new cooler and had installed it using dynex silver thermal paste and wow did the temp drop. about 30deg. idle 95f and can't seam to get it over 120f. but wow was the heatsink huge. bigger than expected, but quiet and effecient.

 

[Mellon Head]

That sounds excellent, considering the clock speed in your system specs.

My only comment on that is that now that you have the wonderful cooler, don't be tempted to push that chip too hard. The rest of us mortals will just get jealous.

 

[tw33k]

As has been pointed out, it may be fun to play with but in the real world it really doesn't amount to a big hill of beans difference in anything... Your hard disk (the biggest bottleneck in most systems) isn't going to go any faster and neither is your network connection (the second biggest bottleneck) so any gains you make are going to be modest at best.

For all practical uses any CPU over 1.5ghz is fast enough for the average user. Increases in speed less than 1.5:1 (eg 3ghz vs 2gh) usually go unnoticed, except on benchmarks and stress tests, which have very little to do with real world computing.

Believe me a minor increase in your WEI number is, for most purposes quite meaningless.

Agreed

 

[fastslvblkcar]

well i think i may have figured something out i have tried to o/c past 3.9ghz in windows 7 x64, windows xp x64, vista x64 and xp x86 and none will run at any faster speed. must be some compatibility issue with my hardware or a prob with the mobo. what do you think? i would just like to be able to hit the 4.0 mark and stable.

 

[Wishmaster]

well i think i may have figured something out i have tried to o/c past 3.9ghz in windows 7 x64, windows xp x64, vista x64 and xp x86 and none will run at any faster speed. must be some compatibility issue with my hardware or a prob with the mobo. what do you think? i would just like to be able to hit the 4.0 mark and stable.

Most likely:
1. The chip is at its limit.
2. RAM is at its limit
3. NB is at its limit

You may be reaching for the impossible. Remember just because others with same hardware can do it, doesnt mean yours can.
Every piece of hardware is different. Even though its technically identical, it isn't.
OCing is all about finding that sweet spot where all of your hardware is happy. No 1 machine is the same.

8 GIGS of RAM is going to make things more difficult, as much more stress.
You may want to try with just 4Gigs installed to see if the chip is capable. If you can get stable with 4,
You have a NB issue. Either not enough Voltage, or its just to much for it at that speed.

You could also try some of the more advanced bios settings, if your board is capable.
Possibly RAM subtimings to try and stabilize.

3.9 is respectable however. Id leave it be if its nice and stable.

 

[fastslvblkcar]

well i have been doing some reading on o/c this cpu and found out it cant go any higher than i have it which isn't that much faster thanstock compared to most of the other o/c'd cpus. because of the stock voltage being 1.4v. so looks like i am s.o.l. with this cpu for getting a 4.0. thanks forthe help man!

 

[smarteyeball]

3.9 is respectable however. Id leave it be if its nice and stable.

Plus everything else Wishmaster mentioned.

Aside from satisfaction, you won't notice any performance difference outside of synthetic benchmarks anyway.

You may just have to accept that you've hit your h/w's limit.

 

[fastslvblkcar]

well i had 4gb of ddr2 800 and couldn't get any more out of it than i have currently. so i think i am kinda stuck with what i got unless i spend more money. the 125w 965 has a lower stock voltage and is more overclockable from what i have been reading. but if i was to go with something else it would be in 6months or so and be the new phenom II x6 released yesterday.

 

[Wishmaster]

If your at your hardwares limits, thats not really a bad thing. Its good to know.

Something you may wish to consider for 24/4 use:
I would suggest backing it off a bit and play with the voltages a bit to see how much lower you can get them.

Perhaps in the 3.6-3.7 range. You wont really notice any difference performance wise, and might find things actually run smoother a bit below the max point.

Not to mention, less power draw & heat being created. I always like to do this after finding the limits.

Just my opinion. Good luck