Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40

Thread: overclocking 1200 intel




  1. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    3,141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smokin_pc
    1.2 ghz is already enough for games right now
    That isn't a very understandable point, what exactly is playable to you?

    Details and resolution is always the limiting factor, somehow I have a very hard time to belive you can play todays most demanding games in 1600x1200 32Bit and all the details maxed on a 1200Mhz cpu. (no matter cpu architechure or vga hardware) The system requirements that are given on most gaming boxes are sooo fake.. They want to sell more copys that's the reason..

    The games are often barely playable with recommended specs, and the minimum specs is just a joke.. Sure you can turn of all eyecandy and bump the res down to 800x600 but I would never dream of paying money for an experince like that.. :yuc:

    You go ahead and trust those boxes, I prefer to trust my eyes.. :)


  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    790

    Default

    A core P4 and Celerons alike are great chips. The whole name of the game for performance is gonna be your FSB, as everything runs off it (Northbridge hardware especially, i.e. CPU, RAM, etc). See, if your Celeron has a 133FSB, and the P4 you compare it against only has its stock 100FSB, well no duh the P4 is gonna lose. It'd be interesting if someone took the PIII core at 1.2 and a Celeron at 1.2 and o/c'd em both the same and see which was top, have a kind of old school shoot out.
    Also, 1.2ghz is the minimum requirement for many games now. I dont think a game is going to be that much of an enjoyable experience if one has to run it with no extra characters, environment models, or phyics effects.
    Modified Dell 8200 Case:
    -400MHz FSB i850 Intel mobo
    -P4 Williamette Socket 478, 1.9GHz
    -768MB 16-bit PC800 RDRAM
    -MSI GF4 Ti4200 128MB @ 284/581
    -7200 RPM Maxtors: 60GB (2MB) on mobo and 160GB (8MB) on ATA/133 PCI Card
    -Creative Inspire T7700 7.1 Speaker System on an Audigy 2
    -Windows XP Home Edition SP2

    Rock on : peace2: , MiStA K6

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Winnipeg, Canada
    Posts
    848

    Default

    Just the teulatin core, the coppermine is .18micron and only has a 128 L2 cache. Used to have a 950 at one time and it only went 15% over stock(1096mhz). But with that board(qdi advance 10b), the memory only ran syncro with the fsb, so the 115mhz mem speed helped lots. That board could not run a teulatin of any sort.

    Where I live, a pIII 1.2 is still almost $300cdn. I pay $62.95cdn for 1.2a celerons and have not had one yet that would not do 133fsb@1.6ghz. And I certainly don't have $572cdn+14%tax for the p4 3ghz 200x4fsb cpu.

    A friend bought a $3000cdn smell(dell)1.8ghz a year ago(lol), and my setup puts it to shame by a huge%. I payed less than $900cdn.(yes I am a scavenger)
    Edit:
    Also, 1.2ghz is the minimum requirement for many games now. I dont think a game is going to be that much of an enjoyable experience if one has to run it with no extra characters, environment models, or phyics effects.
    What are you talking about? A pIII could never run at 177fsb(33%oc) and neither could the ram, even pc150 would probably have trouble. Making the cost to big.
    There is this guy that recently upgraded to an xp2400/pc2100 ram etc. and is still complaining that his gfx are bad. Well duh, just like I told him, his old pci gf2 is what the problem is. His old 850duron/pc100 ram with a new agp radeon 9700 would have done him better than what he got for what he wanted(better and faster gfx). And he is mad at me?? But were talking about someone that thinks that athlon xp's fit a socket 7 or 370 board(lol) and doesnt know the difference between pc100 or pc 2100(he thought it would fit his new board, lol)
    All my games have all the eye candy on @1024x768, I have no lag or missing textures, characters or anything like that.
    athlon xp-m@2456mhz(12x204)
    tt aquariusII liquid cooled/ arctic silver ceramique
    asus a7n8xe-dlx
    thermaltake xaserIII lanfire
    bfg 6800gt
    seagate sataII 250gb/seagate 7200rpm 160gb ide
    samsung dvdrw
    2x1024 kingston hyper-x pc3200/ windows xp pro sp3
    logitech mx518/ logitech wingman rumble
    2x samsung 955df 19"/ canon i960
    creative x-fi fatal1ty 64mb/ altec lansing 251-5.1
    mushkin 550w

    opteron 146 @ 2850 (10x285)
    DFI infinity nf4 ultra
    thermaltake tsunami dream -black
    seagate sataII 500gb
    evga 8600gt oc ssc edition
    samsung sata dvd-rw
    2x1024 ocz black
    logitech ifeel/ nec accusync 75f
    ocz fatal1ty 550w

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    3,141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mista K6
    I dont think a game is going to be that much of an enjoyable experience if one has to run it with no extra characters, environment models, or phyics effects.
    Very true.. :)

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,790

    Default

    maximus, while your points were clearly respectable, they were completely moot, because let me quote myself:

    it takes a Celeron near 3ghz to match a P4 1.8a in gaming performance.
    I did not say anything about PCMark scores, therefore you are wasting your time there. That was not the topic.

    I really wish I could find the link, but it seems to have disappeared. I came across it when doing research for a friends buildup last year.

    The Pentium 4 based Celeron kept up just fine in applications, but when it came to games, the Celeron fell far behind and it took a clock speed of 3ghz to keep up with the P4 1.8a in framerates.

    :shoot3:

    FX5900 - 3DMark2001 [20,566] - 3DMark2003 [7,281] - Aquamark3 [56,694]
    Ti4400 - 3DMark2001 [16,028]

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Winnipeg, Canada
    Posts
    848

    Default

    Here's another example My 3d mark '01 score compare vs Other buddy's all new machine xp2000/pc2100/new obsolete gfx (lol)
    Now thats a comparison of playable vs unplayable. I have tried his, very bad indeed. Is anyone getting it yet? Faster cpu+bad gfx=bad gfx unplayable over 800x600 16bit no eye candy .:thumbs do . Slower cpu+much better dx8.1 gfx card=actually playable1024x768 32bit with good gfx and eye candy. :thumb:

    Edit: I made no reference to p4 style celeron being better than anything else. Or any other 128 L2 cache celeron for that matter. I would never get a p4 or related celeron. Amd all the way when I have more $.
    P.S. I do like your current setup though. 1000fsb, sweet.
    athlon xp-m@2456mhz(12x204)
    tt aquariusII liquid cooled/ arctic silver ceramique
    asus a7n8xe-dlx
    thermaltake xaserIII lanfire
    bfg 6800gt
    seagate sataII 250gb/seagate 7200rpm 160gb ide
    samsung dvdrw
    2x1024 kingston hyper-x pc3200/ windows xp pro sp3
    logitech mx518/ logitech wingman rumble
    2x samsung 955df 19"/ canon i960
    creative x-fi fatal1ty 64mb/ altec lansing 251-5.1
    mushkin 550w

    opteron 146 @ 2850 (10x285)
    DFI infinity nf4 ultra
    thermaltake tsunami dream -black
    seagate sataII 500gb
    evga 8600gt oc ssc edition
    samsung sata dvd-rw
    2x1024 ocz black
    logitech ifeel/ nec accusync 75f
    ocz fatal1ty 550w

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,790

    Default

    The P4 syle Celeron is what I was talking about the whole time (.13). Read my original post.

    You then ignorantly starting saying how stupid I was and went on rambling about your own tests, which had no relevance to my statement.

    Next time, read before you reply...

    FX5900 - 3DMark2001 [20,566] - 3DMark2003 [7,281] - Aquamark3 [56,694]
    Ti4400 - 3DMark2001 [16,028]

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    3,141

    Default

    Well the celeron tualatins are actually quite good performers, I had one myself, it was a 1300Mhz chip and scoored above 8.000 in 3dmark01 with a Ti4600.

    Thoose chips have 256 L2 though, it's the new P4 celerons that are lacking L2 which make em' bad for serious gaming..

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Winnipeg, Canada
    Posts
    848

    Default

    Exactly:cheers: And I am a serious gamer. It's just that I'm in the computer building and config (not supplier) at home business and have seen many ppl do so called upgrades(downgrades really) and am disgusted at "joe blow's" general knowledge of what is good or not. I got ppl complaining that games won't work or work poorly when they don't even understand thats what they get with onboard or very low end obsolete gfx. I have configed pIII800's/1000's with r9700pro's and the results were outstanding. And also have configed xp2800's with crappy sis gfx cards, r7000 gfx cards, and onboard and was disgusted. And I never meant to offend you Soulburner, I actually missed the "a", being 512 L2 cache, of course vs a 128 L2 cache it is obvious that a very large clockspeed advantage would be required to even compete. That's actually a bad comparison. Double maybe, but not quad. Not everybody has many $1000's cdn to spend every year on "state of the art stuff". But could have a very capable machine if they listened to me in the first place. I know how to get the absolute best bang for the really lowest buck, thats my hobby and business.
    athlon xp-m@2456mhz(12x204)
    tt aquariusII liquid cooled/ arctic silver ceramique
    asus a7n8xe-dlx
    thermaltake xaserIII lanfire
    bfg 6800gt
    seagate sataII 250gb/seagate 7200rpm 160gb ide
    samsung dvdrw
    2x1024 kingston hyper-x pc3200/ windows xp pro sp3
    logitech mx518/ logitech wingman rumble
    2x samsung 955df 19"/ canon i960
    creative x-fi fatal1ty 64mb/ altec lansing 251-5.1
    mushkin 550w

    opteron 146 @ 2850 (10x285)
    DFI infinity nf4 ultra
    thermaltake tsunami dream -black
    seagate sataII 500gb
    evga 8600gt oc ssc edition
    samsung sata dvd-rw
    2x1024 ocz black
    logitech ifeel/ nec accusync 75f
    ocz fatal1ty 550w

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The__tweaker
    Well the celeron tualatins are actually quite good performers, I had one myself, it was a 1300Mhz chip and scoored above 8.000 in 3dmark01 with a Ti4600.

    Thoose chips have 256 L2 though, it's the new P4 celerons that are lacking L2 which make em' bad for serious gaming..
    They do not lack an L2 cache. They have 1/2 of the current P4 Northwood.

    FX5900 - 3DMark2001 [20,566] - 3DMark2003 [7,281] - Aquamark3 [56,694]
    Ti4400 - 3DMark2001 [16,028]

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •