Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Best overclockable cpu...




  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Hey everyone,

    I just found this site while browsing google for the best oc'able cpu's. Figured i might as well leave a thread and discuss it with real people.

    My current PC specs...

    CPU: P4 2.427b ghz (533fsb)
    OC'ed to 2861.43 (635.87fsb) (sys. clock.=158.97 x mult. 18)
    Running at 1.65v
    Mobo: P4B533-e w/ "ASUS iPanel" front panel system stats
    RAM: 512mb pc2700 DDR Kingston
    HD's: 120gb Western Digital 7200rpm w/ 8mb cache
    60gb Maxtor 5400rpm w/ 2mb cache
    Monitor: 20" Sony Trinitron CRT
    CD-RW: Yamaha CRW-F1 44x-24x-44x
    sound: onboard 5.1 surround sound
    speakers: two cheap ass speakers (bought 5.1 klipsch on eBay but got ****ed over) :(
    Graphic card: Ati Radeon 8500 128mb
    OS: Win 2000 SP5
    Extras: 6x USB 2.0
    4x Firewire (2x small kind 2x larger kind)<--- clueless about firewire :(


    My main problem is that 2.4 (2.9) is NOT enough. I need more, lots more. But dont want to buy the $500 3.06 processor. So i need info from you guys, which processor is "the best bang for the buck" in terms of overclocking. I was only able to overclock mine 400+ mhz, not goo denough, seeing as how some people are workign with 4.0ghz+ systems.


    Any help would be awesome !!
    wat the dilly yo' ?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    New England Highlands, Australia
    Posts
    21,907

    Default

    That's a very hard question to answer as a lot of luck is involved here. You get 2861MHz with ya 2.4GHz P4 but then someone else with the exact same setup may only be able to get 2760MHz then a third person may get 3GHz. The best bet for higher speeds is to get a faster CPU but with overclockin' its all up to how lucky ya are at getting a good one. :devil win
    <center>:cheers:</center>

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    4,723

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kgbinc
    My main problem is that 2.4 (2.9) is NOT enough. I need more, lots more.
    What exactly is it that you cannot do with 2.8Ghz of processing power:confused:
    Have you tweaked the OS? Software? Tried other software perhaps?

    Offhand, I'd say that the memory you are running is going to be a bottleneck here, as well as a 5400 RPM HDD.
    No amount of overclocking can make up for shortfalls in the hardware, or in the software environment.

    I think you have issues that may well not be related to processor speed at all. Apparently 2 years ago a computer would have been nothing more than a paperweight to you - or you have true need for extreme performance -- if that is the case, you might want to investigate a beowulf cluster.

    There are indeed uses for computational devices that require enormous processing power and I am curious as to what exactly you are trying to do with your system - because, for the intensive applications that come to my tiny mind - your system is not designed for at all.

    You might be amazed what can be done on a properly tuned and tweaked system running a 1Ghz or less CPU.

    I'm not trying to offend here - but I have to admit that your statement along with your system specs just have me baffled completely.
    Raw processor speed truly does not make a computer that works well and is not a "shortcut" to performance.
    I have to wonder, how much fine tuning have you done?
    For crying out loud, they put men on the moon with about one gazillionth of the computational power that you have at hand.

    To answer your question; I believe the Celeron 300A is still about the most OC'able processor ever produced.
    The reason a diamond shines so brightly is because it has many facets which reflect light.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    3

    Default

    thanx for the answer Mr. C,

    To answer your question, i have not tweaked the OS, i have used some programs to get rid of some junk here and thre. But nothing major, i dont know how to do that by my self.

    As for why i need the fast computer would be for music and video editing. I just like fooling around with different programs and see what i can do, expiriment with different filters and plug ins and such. Such to see what i can do. And i dont know if u have ever used such things, but even when workign with a wave in Sonic Foundry, Resampling a song can take more than a minute at times, and i'd jsut like to avoid that.

    Nevermind the video, video takes a lot of processing power and requires lots of ram.

    I also like to take picturtes on my canon s200, not eh best, but it does the job. I take the pics tehm work with them applying filters and such. And when u work with 10, 20 or so pictures, even a cople seconds delay amounts to minutes, and sometimes even more.

    Abotu your statement about my bottlenecks, i agree whole heartdly. My 5400, although not my main drive, but a secondary does slow down my computer., And abotu the RAM, well it was mainly financial difficulties that held me back from pc1066.

    but anyway, keep the comments coming !!

    P.S. what did u mean by

    "Apparently 2 years ago a computer would have been nothing more than a paperweight to you - or you have true need for extreme performance -- if that is the case, you might want to investigate a beowulf cluster.
    " ?????
    wat the dilly yo' ?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    4,723

    Default

    Firstly; to address your P. S. - the Intel PIV 2.4 was released in April 2002 - so essentially 2 years ago I take it you had no use for a computer as they didn't have enough computational power to even begin to meet your needs? Beowulf clusters are essentially 2 or more computers linked together to perform rigorous tasks at a more rapid pace. Beowulf clustering on IBM compatible hardware is something that is not for the faint of heart - it's an absolute breeze on Mac hardware, but near nightmarish on IBM based systems.

    As to your hardware - I understand your financial position very well, click this link to my system specs and have a good laugh.

    Truth is, not having money to spend is the primary reason I tweak.
    I love messing with the innards, but it is so seldom I have any spare cash that I make do with tuning within the OS, drivers and software that I have to obtain optimum performance.

    You have a real powerhouse at your disposal, no doubt. Aside form the PIV being about the most inefficient processor ever devised, it still cranks out pretty good.
    Fact is, you are speaking of tasks that simply take a lot of processing. Rendering graphics, editing video and audio are not exactly instantaneous functions. I've seen 20 second graphics take 30 minutes to render - that's how much is involved in the task.
    Still, doing some internet searches for "optimizing", "tweaking", "tweaks", etc. & Windows 2000 should help you find some useful info to trim the fat in the OS and allow a bit more resources for the task at hand.
    I would reccomend using hands on tweaks, registry editing and so on over the use of software type tweaks, as they tend to unnecessarily burn resources for the sake of simplicity for the user, while accomplishing the exact same thing as doing it yourself.
    MicroSoft made Windows - the end user is the one who makes it work better. But that does take time and research, along with careful application of the required steps. The end result being a smoother running system.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to overclocking at all. I simply wonder if in this particular instance it is the answer to the problem, or as I think is probably the case, just 1 of many steps to be taken to get the performance you desire from your PC.

    I think many of the folks here in this forum would agree that the more you are willing to put into your system, the more you will get in return. < and I'm not talking about $'s here - though they are nice too:thumb:
    The reason a diamond shines so brightly is because it has many facets which reflect light.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    3

    Default

    yes, money sure would be nice...


    Western Digital 200BB HDD 7200 rpm Ultra ata100 Running at ata66
    Western Digital 400BB HDD 7200 rpm Ultra ata100 Running at ata66


    what is this 200bb and 400bb that we are talking about ??

    and it would would be nice if u posted some tweaks that that u have done to ur systems,a n maybe some easy ones for Win2000.
    wat the dilly yo' ?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    New England Highlands, Australia
    Posts
    21,907

    Default

    The "BB"series of WesternDigital drives are the 2MB cache ones where the "JB" series are the 8MB cache ones. The 200 = 20GB (metric) and 400 = 40GB (metric). ;)
    <center>:cheers:</center>

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
  •