Insane clockspeeds?

[adamg]

I just 3Dmark03'ed my system and i went onto the compare website. looking around a bit i found people with Pentium 4's at like 4300mhz! is it really possible to overclock (i assume a 3.06) to 4.2?

 

[NetRyder]

Overclocking by 1 GHz?? I doubt it :huh:

 

[BonyTony]

Afraid it is possible....and if you buy this case it will help you on your way Link here With the Prometeia cooling system, the 3.06Ghz will surpass the 4Ghz mark stable @ 23 x 174 fsb.


But those peeps with those insane scores are indeed Teams of overclockers working together using there knowledge to push components to the limits....volatge mods crazy re soldering of motherboards and whatever it takes but if you have quality parts the 3ghz will overclock nicly and even better in the Prometeia case.... if you can afford one .

If you want to buy one look HERE

 

[NetRyder]

Pffftttt....600 dollars. What a freakin waste!

 

[Sazar]

two words...

liquid nitrogen...

it has to be paired with money and the mind capable of putting together a system that is used to basically cool the device to the max.. essentially for ONE run

the video cards are also cooled using LN...

so basically... yes you can overclock by that much

whether people use it @ these levels for any extended periods of time is a different matter...

 

[Zedric]

Yeah it's possible. Sometimes it works: http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDIy
Sometimes it doesn't: http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDE5

 

[jumpy]

A lot of people are running their 3ghz chips at 4.2ghz on a daily basis with prometia cooling systems. $600 may sound alot but these cooling systems will last ages, and will stay a good cooling system for any new cpu you get. These people are fairly hardcore overclockers and have the money to buy $500 cpu's and $250 motherboards on a regular basis, what's $600 more?

Water cooling gets pretty expensive considering the effectiveness is only slightly above good air cooling. As sazar said, LN2 is often used to push clock speeds really high for short periods of time to benchmark etc.

Netryder, 1ghz overclocks can be achieved on stock cooling with p4's. A lot of 1.6A's get to 2.6+ and 1.8A's at 2.8+ My 1.8 does 2.6 with a little extra voltage...

 

[BonyTony]

On the subject of cooling and overclocking these cases HERE seem to do a good job too....and are within the reach of my spending (come on you spend £300-£400 on a graphic card!).

 

[Anakist]

What about gettingan athlon XP chip that fast??

James

 

[Taurus]

they don't overclock quite as well as p4's. but if you have a 2500+ (1.83ghz) barton, you could get it up to 3000+ (2.17ghz) level pretty easy.

 

[canadian_divx]

maybe the 3000 with a electro thermic cooler and a liqued cooling combined LOL

 

[Anakist]

Hehehe. What is the go with athlons numbering system?? Also, What is the best one to get??? Price vs performance, maybe with OCing as well.

James

 

[LeeJend]

AMD chips use more complex instructions than the Intel chips. That means that in general (graphics, number crunching) the Athlon can do more per clock cycle than the Pentium. The exception is in memory intensive tasks like compressing files or doing MP3s, there the faster clock systems in the pentiums win.

The second speed factor is FSB (outside the chip speed transfers). Intel has a strong lead here and AMD is not catching up even based on the latest rumors.

The advantage is about $100 in favor of the athlons for a given capability. AMD rates their slower clocked chips using a benchmark that tests many different tasks and then equates the result to the intel clock speeds. AMD XP3000 is about the same as an Intel 3.06 gHzig chip in most applications.

The price performance curve right now makes the AMD Barton core XP2500 the best buy, especially if you can over clcok it a few hundred points.

Be careful overclcoking AMD chips. Intel chips have thermal protection built in and are near impossible to fry. An AMD chip depends on overheat protection on the motherboard and how good the protection is varies by MB maker. ASUS has the best protection the last I saw.

 

[Taurus]

the performance rating for the xp's is all based on the first athlon thunderbirds. the fastest tbird was 1.4ghz which equals an athlon xp 1400+ (if there were such a thing). the xp 1500+ is a litte faster but only runs at 1.33ghz.

this chart from amd should help:

 

[Anakist]

I have an a7n8x deluxe mobo so I should be alright.

Thanks.

James

 

[Sazar]

Originally posted by LeeJend
AMD chips use more complex instructions than the Intel chips. That means that in general (graphics, number crunching) the Athlon can do more per clock cycle than the Pentium. The exception is in memory intensive tasks like compressing files or doing MP3s, there the faster clock systems in the pentiums win.

The second speed factor is FSB (outside the chip speed transfers). Intel has a strong lead here and AMD is not catching up even based on the latest rumors.

The advantage is about $100 in favor of the athlons for a given capability. AMD rates their slower clocked chips using a benchmark that tests many different tasks and then equates the result to the intel clock speeds. AMD XP3000 is about the same as an Intel 3.06 gHzig chip in most applications.

The price performance curve right now makes the AMD Barton core XP2500 the best buy, especially if you can over clcok it a few hundred points.

Be careful overclcoking AMD chips. Intel chips have thermal protection built in and are near impossible to fry. An AMD chip depends on overheat protection on the motherboard and how good the protection is varies by MB maker. ASUS has the best protection the last I saw.

agree with the first part but not so with the clock speeds for fsb...

without using pr numbers (ie 400/800 or whatever) intel and amd offer pretty similar products in terms of FSB...

the top intel contender right now runs @ 200mhz v/s 166 for amd... at least till the middle of this month when the nda's are up for reviewing the new barton's... @ which time amd will unveil its own 200mhz fsb product...

ddr and qdt do work differently but they a little on the complex side to say one is better than the other... amd has lower latencies and shorter pipelines than intel... both as designed to do the same task in different ways... @ the end of the day the performance is close enough to not really warrant much of a cpu war.. but on the whole the amd systems are cheaper (ie using ddr... top performing intel systems use RDRAM...)

 

[jumpy]

Originally posted by Sazar
but on the whole the amd systems are cheaper (ie using ddr... top performing intel systems use RDRAM...)

Agree with the rest of what you said but I think you'll find top performing intel systems will now use DDR. On the granite bay chipset running at high frequencies, DDR will exceed the bandwidth of RDRAM. R.I.P RDRAM
AMD are a lot cheaper in the low to mid price range but are around the same price as Intel in the bleeding edge tech setups.

 

[Taurus]

yeah, the intel 850E chipset was the fastest when fitted with a 533-bus p4 and it's pc1066 rdram. now the fastest will be the 875P (i think?) chipset with an 800-bus p4 and dual channel pc3200.

 

[BonyTony]

Have a read of HERE on the topic of how far a new pentium 2.4c will go.