overclocking

A short time ago we had a discussion on overclocking:
I am posting a link, for those interested on how to do it safely:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2368074,00.asp

--
Peter

Overclocking is an utterly pointless exercise they may generate a few higher
numbers on a measurement scale but has absolutely no practical benefit to
the end user.
It can easily fry your CPU, memory or motherboard even when done cautiously.
The main reason for that is most computer cases are inadequately
ventilated/cooled and even the slight increase in power usage with minor
overclocking can melt silicon.
Overclocking is for people who would rather play with hardware settings than
accomplish any real tasks.
If you need significant increase in computer power you need a newer, faster
machine.


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 8/26/2010 11:03 PM, wrote:
On Aug 26, 6:37 pm, wrote:
Overclocking is an utterly pointless exercise they may generate a few higher
numbers on a measurement scale but has absolutely no practical benefit to
the end user.

Absolutely? So you say... :/ The frame rate, speed of loading
textures, ect
of my flight simulator tells me a different story than the one you
offer.

It can easily fry your CPU, memory or motherboard even when done cautiously.

I've been overclocking for years and I've never fried anything yet.
Not a
single part.

The main reason for that is most computer cases are inadequately
ventilated/cooled and even the slight increase in power usage with minor
overclocking can melt silicon.

Slight increases will not be a problem. Large increases will require
better
cooling. Thinking people are aware of this issue.

Overclocking is for people who would rather play with hardware settings than
accomplish any real tasks.

No, overclocking is for people that want to get upper end power with
chump change price tags. Or they are already running upper end
gear and want to get even more performance from the machine.
I could be running the fastest machine on the market, and I would
still likely overclock it to some extent. I can use every bit of power
I can get.

If you need significant increase in computer power you need a newer, faster
machine.

My present machine is about 3-4 months old.. And it's overclocked.
Quite stable. Does not overheat. And I get better frame rates on
my flight simulator which is the main application that prompts me to
do such a thing.

I'm not saying overclocking is for everyone. It's not. Some people
are too damned stupid to safely overclock a machine.
But to say it has no purpose other than play with hardware settings
is pure bovine excrement.


I did not post the link to start a war. Just to supply information on
how to safely overclock, if anyone feels the need.

BTW: You should have said: "MALE bovine excrement." :-)

Peter

On 8/27/2010 8:24 AM, peter wrote:
On 8/26/2010 11:03 PM, wrote:
On Aug 26, 6:37 pm, wrote:
Overclocking is an utterly pointless exercise they may generate a few
higher
numbers on a measurement scale but has absolutely no practical
benefit to
the end user.

Absolutely? So you say... :/ The frame rate, speed of loading
textures, ect
of my flight simulator tells me a different story than the one you
offer.

It can easily fry your CPU, memory or motherboard even when done
cautiously.

I've been overclocking for years and I've never fried anything yet.
Not a
single part.

The main reason for that is most computer cases are inadequately
ventilated/cooled and even the slight increase in power usage with minor
overclocking can melt silicon.

Slight increases will not be a problem. Large increases will require
better
cooling. Thinking people are aware of this issue.

Overclocking is for people who would rather play with hardware
settings than
accomplish any real tasks.

No, overclocking is for people that want to get upper end power with
chump change price tags. Or they are already running upper end
gear and want to get even more performance from the machine.
I could be running the fastest machine on the market, and I would
still likely overclock it to some extent. I can use every bit of power
I can get.

If you need significant increase in computer power you need a newer,
faster
machine.

My present machine is about 3-4 months old.. And it's overclocked.
Quite stable. Does not overheat. And I get better frame rates on
my flight simulator which is the main application that prompts me to
do such a thing.

I'm not saying overclocking is for everyone. It's not. Some people
are too damned stupid to safely overclock a machine.
But to say it has no purpose other than play with hardware settings
is pure bovine excrement.


I did not post the link to start a war. Just to supply information on
how to safely overclock, if anyone feels the need.

BTW: You should have said: "MALE bovine excrement." :-)

Anyone who feels the need is quite capable of googling "overclocking"
and finding vastly more information than your one crummy article that
has no real information. That article tells how to tweak and pray, it
doesn't tell how to "safely overclock".

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 8/27/2010 8:24 AM, peter wrote:
On 8/26/2010 11:03 PM, wrote:
On Aug 26, 6:37 pm, wrote:
Overclocking is an utterly pointless exercise they may generate a few
higher
numbers on a measurement scale but has absolutely no practical
benefit to
the end user.

Absolutely? So you say... :/ The frame rate, speed of loading
textures, ect
of my flight simulator tells me a different story than the one you
offer.

It can easily fry your CPU, memory or motherboard even when done
cautiously.

I've been overclocking for years and I've never fried anything yet.
Not a
single part.

The main reason for that is most computer cases are inadequately
ventilated/cooled and even the slight increase in power usage with
minor
overclocking can melt silicon.

Slight increases will not be a problem. Large increases will require
better
cooling. Thinking people are aware of this issue.

Overclocking is for people who would rather play with hardware
settings than
accomplish any real tasks.

No, overclocking is for people that want to get upper end power with
chump change price tags. Or they are already running upper end
gear and want to get even more performance from the machine.
I could be running the fastest machine on the market, and I would
still likely overclock it to some extent. I can use every bit of power
I can get.

If you need significant increase in computer power you need a newer,
faster
machine.

My present machine is about 3-4 months old.. And it's overclocked.
Quite stable. Does not overheat. And I get better frame rates on
my flight simulator which is the main application that prompts me to
do such a thing.

I'm not saying overclocking is for everyone. It's not. Some people
are too damned stupid to safely overclock a machine.
But to say it has no purpose other than play with hardware settings
is pure bovine excrement.


I did not post the link to start a war. Just to supply information on
how to safely overclock, if anyone feels the need.

BTW: You should have said: "MALE bovine excrement." :-)

Anyone who feels the need is quite capable of googling "overclocking" and
finding vastly more information than your one crummy article that has no
real information. That article tells how to tweak and pray, it doesn't
tell how to "safely overclock".


So contribute something positive.

--
Peter

"lofi" wrote in message
...
Overclocking is an utterly pointless exercise they may generate a few
higher numbers on a measurement scale but has absolutely no practical
benefit to the end user.
It can easily fry your CPU, memory or motherboard even when done
cautiously.

That just isn't true. About the only way you can fry a CPU is to run it
without the heatsink and fan -- and even then, I believe most if not all
modern CPUs will shut down by themselves before they fry. Overclocking at
progressively higher speeds eventually reaches the point where the machine
just doesn't run, or doesn't run properly. The overclocker then backs off
enough to ensure it does run stable and reliably, and that's that.

Now I'm speaking of just overclocking, not changing voltages. Some
overclockers do increase CPU voltage to get higher frequencies, and that I
suppose does carry an element of risk.

The main reason for that is most computer cases are inadequately
ventilated/cooled and even the slight increase in power usage with minor
overclocking can melt silicon.

No offense, but that is just nonsense. Many if not most motherboard
manufacturers today include instructions for overclocking and even supply
software for doing it, right on the installation disc. When done properly
there is virtually no danger of damaging anything.

Cooling is important, of course. For many overclockers it's important mostly
for getting higher CPU speeds, not to prevent "melting silicon." It is at
least theoretically important for component longevity as well. Every
computer I put together has good airflow through the case, and I think most
other home builders are careful about this too.

Overclocking is for people who would rather play with hardware settings
than accomplish any real tasks.

That may be true for some of the hot rodders who are mostly interested in
getting higher 3DMark numbers than the next guy. But many PC games today are
extremely demanding with respect to computer performance, and overclocking
may make a game playable that would not be (or would not be as well) without
it. In some kinds of games, frame rate is everything.

If you need significant increase in computer power you need a newer,
faster machine.

It's true that you can only do so much with overclocking. But that "newer,
faster machine" may still not be quite fast enough, and overclocking may
make it so.

I have computers all over the place, and at the moment not a single one of
them is overclocked. I don't do it if I don't need it. But if tomorrow or
next week I should need it, I will overclock with a high heart.

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...
[]
I have computers all over the place, and at the moment not a single one
of them is overclocked. I don't do it if I don't need it. But if
tomorrow or next week I should need it, I will overclock with a high
heart.

Same here. But if anything, I now go for the lower-powered components -
"green" HDs, Intel Atom processors, the simplest graphics cards (or
built-in) etc - where at all possible, to keep down heat and noise, reduce
power consumption, and perhaps increase reliability.

For what I do, today's processors are plenty powerful enough - I get more
gain in productivity from increasing RAM, perhaps using 64-bit Windows,
and have two displays.

Cheers,
David

"David J Taylor" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...
[]
I have computers all over the place, and at the moment not a single one
of them is overclocked. I don't do it if I don't need it. But if tomorrow
or next week I should need it, I will overclock with a high heart.

Same here. But if anything, I now go for the lower-powered components -
"green" HDs, Intel Atom processors, the simplest graphics cards (or
built-in) etc - where at all possible, to keep down heat and noise, reduce
power consumption, and perhaps increase reliability.

For what I do, today's processors are plenty powerful enough - I get more
gain in productivity from increasing RAM, perhaps using 64-bit Windows,
and have two displays.


Is there a significant advantage to a second display? I have been
considering getting one, but, I have to justify the expenditure to my
treasury department. She just got a washing machine and dryer and is unhappy
with the speed of her WinXP machine. G
A trade opportunity window, (no pun intended,) has opened. My alternative
would be a new WA lens.



--
Peter

"Peter" wrote:
"David J Taylor" wrote in message
...

For what I do, today's processors are plenty powerful
enough - I get more gain in productivity from
increasing RAM, perhaps using 64-bit Windows, and have
two displays.

Is there a significant advantage to a second display? I have been
considering getting one, but, I have to justify the expenditure to my
treasury department. She just got a washing machine and dryer and is unhappy
with the speed of her WinXP machine. G
A trade opportunity window, (no pun intended,) has opened. My alternative
would be a new WA lens.

Like a lot of people I've been using dual monitor setups
for years, and find it extremely nice. Currently a pair
of NEC LCD2090UXi monitors are in use. I've also been
known to haul an older 19" LCD off to someplace for use
as a second screen on a laptop when giving a
presentation to a small group of people. That works
well because typical laptop screens are much more
sensitive to angle of view than are good desktop LCD's.

However, the price of really large (26" and above) LCD's
is dropping rapidly. I'm expecting that the next time I
need to purchase new monitor(s) it will be necessary to
first determine if one large monitor is a better deal
than two smaller ones, and it might just be time to
revert back to a single monitor.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Peter" wrote in message
...
[]
Is there a significant advantage to a second display? I have been
considering getting one, but, I have to justify the expenditure to my
treasury department. She just got a washing machine and dryer and is
unhappy with the speed of her WinXP machine. G
A trade opportunity window, (no pun intended,) has opened. My
alternative would be a new WA lens.

For what I do, yes there is. I do some program development, so it's very
handy to have the program under test running on the left display, and the
compiler and debugging tools on the right-hand display. Displays today
would likely be far cheaper than a WA lens, unless you want something very
well calibrated. For photo use, you may have the photo on your well
calibrated main display, and the program menus etc. on the secondary. I
was really surprised how much of a difference it made for me. Perhaps you
have an old display somewhere you could try out?

Cheers,
David