[Toasty]

Since my PC sucks, and I'm cheap, I've been looking at overclocking my Pentium 4 1.8Ghz CPU. Though the concept is easy: Increase the processor's speed to increae performance, it's a bit more compliated. PCSTATS has quite a few good quality guides that tell you how to do this, and at first it seemed almost ver my head. ut the more I read, the simpler it seemed. But it's still kind complicated.

And to any of you PC gamers *coughWDcough* this is a great way to get better performance in your games. Plus, as long as you don't go crazy with the CPU's voltage, you won't kill yourself/PC.

These two articles are great if you have never OC'd your PC before.
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?art...1804&page=1
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?art...=873&page=1

Read all of both articles, and to make something clear, A lower latency in your RAM is better for gameing, but you may have to drop the speed of it to reduce errors. But Lower Latency > RAM's Speed when gameing.

[Someone Else]

Considering this PC is really my dad's, I wouldn't want to mess with it. And since my dad isn't a PC gamer (he only likes playing the PS3 cause he's a Sony boy, but he still sucks at it) I doubt he'd bother doing things like this.

I think I generally get a bit over 10 FPS in Crysis (which looks more like 20-ish FPS, due to post-processing. 20 FPS is playable) so I think my computer is already an impressive gaming machine. Still, Caael might be interested.

[Toasty]

Well, you could still boost the performance for both gameing and regular stuff. All you have to do is give the memory a faster FSB speed and leave the latency alone. It wouldn't be a bad idea to increase the clock speed of the processor even only by 100 or 200Mhz. It doesn't have to be crazy fast, but it'll make the games, and regular web surfing/word processing/whatever run smoother and faster. And if it's only increased by a few hundred Mhz, it shouldn't run all that hot either.

But yeah, Caael should try this. Assuming he has his own PC.

[Mallick]

You say WD yet I play PC games 24/7 on a **** computer :\

[pHantOm]

Most Pentium Processors are locked and cant be overclocked. If you are interested in overclocking look into AMD processors.

[Toasty]

Not true. Changeing the clock multiplier (which is the locked part of the Pentium 4's) isn't the only way to overclock. You can also change the FSB s[eed of the processor. The only problem with this is, is that you either have to increas the speed of the RAM as well, or put a divider between the two. For example, if both the RAM and the Processor's FSB speed is 200Mhz, and the ram would become unstable if it went any higher, then you increase the FSB speed of the Processor by 100Mhz and put a 2:3 divider between the two.

'Course, it's far easier to just increase the clock multiplier, which is why AMD's would still be a better choice.

[pHantOm]

Dude of Wind, on Dec 9 2007, 05:36 PM, said:

'Course, it's far easier to just increase the clock multiplier, which is why AMD's would still be a better choice.

Exactly, people here are looking for a quick system boost that wouldn't endanger their parents computer. Also you must take into consider overheating, if you are over clocking please make sure you have the proper cooling system or ventalation.

[Toasty]

Yes, that is probably the most important thing to consider when doing this. Though like I said, you won't be able to fry a modern processor (Intel Pentium 4 or AMD Athlon XP) unless you go crazy on the voltages. Though I can't really say the same for the RAM, but if the processor shuts itself off, then everything should go with it automatically.

And it's not any more dangerous to do this with an Intel other than AMD's usually run a bit cooler. I'd give a shot at overclocking my grandma's old PC which she gave to me (it has an AMD running at 400Mhz), but I can't get it to work.

[pHantOm]

Because that computer needs thrown in the garbage. *Slides trashcan over* It's time to say goodbye.

[Folcon]

I'd consider over clocking my PC, but I'm getting a new one soon that will make my current one look like its moving at a turtle's pace in comparison, I hope. I guess I could try to OC it, but I don't want to f*** it up before getting my new rig. Although I am debating keeping this old rig to use as a back up system to store backups of my data files. But for my current games, Starcraft and Warcraft 3, there is no real need for it. Once I get my new rig, I'll talk to the family techie for input on OCing the new rig, but with a dual core processor, I don't think it will be necessary.

[Toasty]

pHantOm, on Dec 10 2007, 06:12 AM, said:

Because that computer needs thrown in the garbage. *Slides trashcan over* It's time to say goodbye.

Yeah. I keep it only for tinkering purpouses, and for running a freakishly awesome MS-DOS game called 'Terror From the Deep' (the game is SO old that you can't run it on a modern day PC. It just runs too fast. Heck, it runs fast on my grandma's). The main reason it doesn't work though, is becuase I took apart the hard drive and put it back together, and now I'm too lazy to go and fix whatever I broke. <.<; That and our old gateway's HD doesn't work on it for some reason, even though they ran the same OS, and had roughly the same stats.

escout, on Dec 10 2007, 01:32 PM, said:

I'd consider over clocking my PC, but I'm getting a new one soon that will make my current one look like its moving at a turtle's pace in comparison, I hope. I guess I could try to OC it, but I don't want to f*** it up before getting my new rig. Although I am debating keeping this old rig to use as a back up system to store backups of my data files. But for my current games, Starcraft and Warcraft 3, there is no real need for it. Once I get my new rig, I'll talk to the family techie for input on OCing the new rig, but with a dual core processor, I don't think it will be necessary.

As long as you don't push the voltage too high, and you have a heatsink (which you should because then you're PC wouldn't run at all), I can garuntee that you won't break it. And even with a dual core, a faster clock speed is always a good thing to have. With games, it's not the amount of data that can be accessed, it's the speed at which you can get the data. At least that's what I've gathered. So basically, a Pentium 4 running 3.2hz will out-perform a dual core running 1.6Ghz per core. I'm baseing that off of the fact that lower latency RAM is better for gameing, so th same would probably apply to a CPU.

[Caael]

Caael has his own PC. Caael lieks gaming.

Please expain this topic to me in 2 sentances, as it's midnight and i'm rather tired.

[Toasty]

You can make your games run a LOT smoother with Over Clocking. You WON'T kill your computer if you don't push it too far.

[Caael]

How? I cba to read through the parent post as it's loong.

And if I do break it, is it recoverable from?

[Toasty]

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?art...1804&page=1

That will tell you verything you need to know. I'd suggest getting sleep first and doing this on te weekend, as it might take a little while.

And as long as you've got an Intel Pentium 4/AMD Athlon XP or later processor, it's pretty much impossible for you to fry your processor. If you do push it to the point where it won't even start windows up, the guide also tells you how to fix it.

[Folcon]

Dude of Wind, on Dec 10 2007, 07:05 PM, said:

As long as you don't push the voltage too high, and you have a heatsink (which you should because then you're PC wouldn't run at all), I can garuntee that you won't break it. And even with a dual core, a faster clock speed is always a good thing to have. With games, it's not the amount of data that can be accessed, it's the speed at which you can get the data. At least that's what I've gathered. So basically, a Pentium 4 running 3.2hz will out-perform a dual core running 1.6Ghz per core. I'm baseing that off of the fact that lower latency RAM is better for gameing, so th same would probably apply to a CPU.

Well my new rig is mostly going to be used for the classes I'm taking for the digital media program at my school, and less for gaming, yeah right. So would a higher clock speed improve programs like photoshop, flash, and 3D modelers, or would it slow them down? Because that is what I mainly plan to be useing my comp for, then gaming. Business before pleasure afterall.

[Toasty]

Well, I'd have to do more research for shure, but you'll be safe going with a dual core running at least 2Ghz per core. The one thing that really affects the performance of 3D oriented programs (gameing, probably photo-editing, DEFINATELY 3D modeling) is the Latency timing of the RAM. a Timing of 2-2-2-5 running at 400Mhz would outperform a timing of say, 3-4-4-8 runnig at 700Mhz when it came to 3D oriented stuff. However for flah or MS Word and stuff, the latter would out perform the 2-2-2-5 timing. That's all in the scond tutorial.

In other news, the Pentium 4 Socket 423 I have is GHEY and entirely locked, makeing it impossible to overclock. GRAHH. Plus, the reason my upgraded CPU doesn't work is either lack of power available for it, or worse, because the FSB on it is too fast for my system to handle. Yay research.

I WANT A NEW COMPUTER.

[Mallick]

Dude of Wind, on Dec 10 2007, 10:04 PM, said:

Well, I'd have to do more research for shure, but you'll be safe going with a dual core running at least 2Ghz per core. The one thing that really affects the performance of 3D oriented programs (gameing, probably photo-editing, DEFINATELY 3D modeling) is the Latency timing of the RAM. a Timing of 2-2-2-5 running at 400Mhz would outperform a timing of say, 3-4-4-8 runnig at 700Mhz when it came to 3D oriented stuff. However for flah or MS Word and stuff, the latter would out perform the 2-2-2-5 timing. That's all in the scond tutorial.

In other news, the Pentium 4 Socket 423 I have is GHEY and entirely locked, makeing it impossible to overclock. GRAHH. Plus, the reason my upgraded CPU doesn't work is either lack of power available for it, or worse, because the FSB on it is too fast for my system to handle. Yay research.

I WANT A NEW COMPUTER.

[Caael]

I'll wait until I get my 3.0 Dual Core CPU, as I've got something like 1.5 dual core at the moment. What does it actually involve?

[Toasty]

Well, if the clock multiplyer isn't locked, then all you have to do is increase the clock multiplyer until you can't reliably start up Windows. Then you increase the voltage of the CPU core. Continue until you're CPU's temp is just below 70 Degrees Celcius or less (preferably less). If it IS locked, which will probably be the case if it's an intel, than you have to increase the FSB speed, of the CPU and the RAM, and then adjust the RAM's latency timing until it produces little to no errors. The other option (which won't give as much of a performance boost) is to put a speed divider between the processor's FSB speed and the RAM's speed to keep the RAM in a reliable state.

Obviously, adjusting the clock multiplier is easiest. However, it's not impossible to OC if it is locked. It's just much more complicated and frustrateing. And time consumeing.

[Caael]

...

I'll pass. I barely understood any of that.

[Toasty]

Heh. It takes a while for it to soak in. I had to go over it a few times to get it all.

But seriously. Dell can suck my balls.

[Max]

I would point out to whoever is going around recommending AMD chips for overclocking purposes, that you could overclock the hell out of an AMD chip, and it still won't match the performance of its equivalent Intel C2D/C2Q at this point in time. Get the Intel chip, keep your system cooler, and get better performance. Of course, you can still overclock the Intel chip, if you feel it really necessary.

[Toasty]

If I ever get the money to build my own rig, I'll be putting a dual or quad core Xeon running at least 2.4Ghz.

And Max, do you know where to find DDR2 RAM with ECC? I'd imagine that the ECC chip would make low latency RAM run better at higher speeds.

[Max]

ECC is actually a performance killer. You only want/need ECC for a server, where ensuring that the data in RAM is valid and stays valid is more important than raw performance. As you might imagine, "Error Correcting Code" will hurt performance because it has to continuously make sure that the data it is holding is valid.

[Toasty]

Yeah, it'd take more time to ensure the data isn't corrupted. But since you get more errors in RAM running a timing of 2-2-2-5 than one running just as fast with a timing of 3-4-4-8, I figured ECC would negate that problem. I've got 1GB of RDRAM in my PC atm, and 2 of the four sticks have ECC. I'd get some non ECC RAM, but holy crap. RDRAM is expensive. D:

[Max]

Believe me, ECC will hurt performance way more than the slower timings will. You probably shouldn't mix ECC and non-ECC RAM, though I'm not 100% sure on that. Are you running a server/workstation motherboard that it can accept RDRAM?

[Toasty]

Nah. I've just got a really crappy Dell Dimension 8100 from 2001. I've got the origional 64MB sticks, but I can't imagine that those would make it run faster.

[Someone Else]

My processor's a Pentium dual core @ 3.00 GHz so I don't see a point in trying to overclock this.

Can you overclock GPUs, though? Mine is a Nvidia 7950 GT.

[Toasty]

Yes. However, it's bit different, and easier (from what I hear), than overclocking a CPU. Instead of using the BIOS to adjust stuff, you use a program, which is much easier. Just search 'GPU Overclocking on google or something. I'm sure something'll come up.