Fast= You jump strait to a mhz you want.
Slow= You take it slow and only up it 1-4mhz at a time.. then test it.
Printable View
Fast= You jump strait to a mhz you want.
Slow= You take it slow and only up it 1-4mhz at a time.. then test it.
Slow.
Chances are that if you try to jump straight to a figure, you will go straight past the best stable figure. Some motherboards have a feature which can slowly increase the FSB until the system becomes unstable. On the next reboot a slightly lower frequency will have been set. Other boards provide software to try this 'on the fly', but you often need to watch this and make a note of the stable frequency.
Also, there will be different stable frequencies for different components (mem, agp etc) so you need to lock those down first while testing your processor, then lock your processor down while testing mem, and so on. This all depends on the capabilities of your motherboard, and whether you can change the processor multiplier.
Once you've tested everything, you then need to work out the optimum frequencies/multipliers to give the best overall performance.
Edit: remember that if you have a multilpier of 12 (for example) raising the FSB by 1MHz raises processor speed by 12MHz, which is quite a big jump, so during the testing phase it is quite common to change the multiplier in order to find the best speed. For example, with a 12x multiplier you may find that the system is stable at 1992Mhz (12x166) but unstable at 2004MHz (12x167). By dropping the multiplier it may be possible to check 2000Mhz (10x200) or 1998MHz (9x222).
I do either - or..................I've been doing it for some time and have ample supplies to mobo's & cpu's :w00t:
Those wanting to experiment should heed the words of lynx above.
Are you asking about CPU? Or GPU?Quote:
Originally posted by Wolfmight@15 October 2003 - 14:26
Fast= You jump strait to a mhz you want.
Slow= You take it slow and only up it 1-4mhz at a time.. then test it.
quickly for the first few increases, then go more slowly when you're reaching the 'limit'
unless of course, you already know the device is stable at a certain speed, in which case, i just knock it up to that straight away
slow is always better. especially for noobs. if they run into a prob, there is still room to reverse back to default.
potQuote:
Originally posted by abu_has_the_power@15 October 2003 - 21:58
slow is always better. especially for noobs
kettle
black
:rolleyes:
Are you asking about CPU? Or GPU? [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by adamp2p+15 October 2003 - 14:57--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (adamp2p @ 15 October 2003 - 14:57)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Wolfmight@15 October 2003 - 14:26
Fast= You jump strait to a mhz you want.
Slow= You take it slow and only up it 1-4mhz at a time.. then test it.
both
glad i made this poll.. i was thinkin of jumpin strait to 370mhz clock.
I took it slow and was able to reach about 378mhz core. 285mhz memory.
1 strait jump mighta blew it.
I decided just to use 300mhz core and normal 270mhz memory for normal useage.. whilst i swap to the 360-370mhz core when i wanna play a game like Splinter Cell at max everything. (heh that game would still run slow at that 1280x1024 res with max settings unless i had overclocked core)
Those are totally safe settings. So, break it down, dude, what is the percent performance increase yield from your overclocking?Quote:
Originally posted by Wolfmight@21 October 2003 - 04:31
I took it slow and was able to reach about 378mhz core. 285mhz memory.
1 strait jump mighta blew it.
I decided just to use 300mhz core and normal 270mhz memory for normal useage.. whilst i swap to the 360-370mhz core when i wanna play a game like Splinter Cell at max everything. (heh that game would still run slow at that 1280x1024 res with max settings unless i had overclocked core)
Oh, and I consider 1280X1024 an oddball resolution. A true 3:2 is 1280X960--much better for gaming.
Do you have a 17" moniter?
1280X1024 looks better than 1280X960 on mine cause there's like 2 black bars(left and right sides) when i use 1280X960 in games.
Nope, I have a 21 inch FD trinitron multiscan. One badass monitor!Quote:
Originally posted by Wolfmight@21 October 2003 - 04:54
Do you have a 17" moniter?
1280X1024 looks better than 1280X960 on mine cause there's like 2 black bars(left and right sides) when i use 1280X960 in games.
Did you install the "custom resolutions" at X hertz in the Omega install?
Nope, I have a 21 inch FD trinitron multiscan. One badass monitor!Quote:
Originally posted by adamp2p+20 October 2003 - 22:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (adamp2p @ 20 October 2003 - 22:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Wolfmight@21 October 2003 - 04:54
Do you have a 17" moniter?
1280X1024 looks better than 1280X960 on mine cause there's like 2 black bars(left and right sides) when i use 1280X960 in games.
Did you install the "custom resolutions" at X hertz in the Omega install? [/b][/quote]
yea.
i jus think 1280x1024 looks good
ur rite man. if u went straight to 370, say by by to room and hello big ass explosion and big ass fire... lol... and maybe big ass part of paycheck gone
well i think that would happen if you had a way to set 1-5ghz and actually make it set on fire! :blink: WoooQuote:
Originally posted by abu_has_the_power@21 October 2003 - 00:09
ur rite man. if u went straight to 370, say by by to room and hello big ass explosion and big ass fire... lol... and maybe big ass part of paycheck gone