| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 52388 | 2004-12-17 13:33:00 | I think I'm being ripped off.... XP3000+ | hamstar (4) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 304886 | 2004-12-18 11:15:00 | Ok... i dont expect it to run at 3Ghz!!! But, if it has the dual 166 and it is running at 2179Mhz... is it gonna be faster than my processor running at 2300Mhz and single 333? Also, I don't call that overclocking. It's like a preset thing on the motherboard. Naturally I selected the highest one I could. I haven't added any extra voltage or coolage to mine or my neigbours one, and they both run fine at decent temps... between 40°C and 55°C.... although it isn't summer yet... |
hamstar (4) | ||
| 304887 | 2004-12-18 11:54:00 | "Selecting the highest one you can" is extreme overclocking mate. My motherboard's "highest one" would run my Celeron at around 5 GHz. The only setting that chip should be running at (unless you are overclocking) is: FSB = 166MHz Multiplier = 13 Clock speed = 2197MHz Processor = XP 3000+ Anything else is overclocking it. "Choosing the highest one" is overclocking it. It is currently running at the speed it was advertised at. It has a different, more efficient core to your 2600+, so its low clock speed does not make it any worse than any other chips. You got what you paid for dude, if you can't make it run better than you paid for, tough luck. Cheers George |
george12 (7) | ||
| 304888 | 2004-12-18 11:57:00 | Also, this "single 333" you speak of, there is no such thing. A 333 is just a DDR 166 = 333 (Double Data Rate). So the chips DDR 166 = 333 Meaning that BOTH chips have FSB 166 / 333 depending how you look at it. It might outperform the 2300MHz one, I don't know too much on all the finer details of AMD's cores. |
george12 (7) | ||
| 304889 | 2004-12-18 11:58:00 | What's this 333 you keep talking about? If you set it to 166Mhz in the BIOS it will run at 333Mhz (DDR) . If you overclock it to 2300Mhz it will probably be quite unstable without a lot of extra voltage . I really suggest researching, you don't know what's going on and you're likely to blow something up . Cheers, alphazulusixeightniner :-{ } :cool: |
alphazulusixeightniner (185) | ||
| 304890 | 2004-12-18 12:51:00 | well, all i want to know now is if it was gonna run faster than my xp2600 or faster than lower processors regardless of clock speed... looks like it does, so thats ok then... But I wonder if I can get it faster without going over 1.7volts... :D |
hamstar (4) | ||
| 304891 | 2004-12-18 21:56:00 | dont try with voltages unless you know what you are doing , you might end up with no cpu | noone (22) | ||
| 304892 | 2004-12-18 22:53:00 | I read somewhere that increasing the voltage of your CPU will halve it's life every 0.1 volts. At the default voltage, CPUs generally last around 12 years. So, +0.1v = 6yrs, +0.2v = 3yrs, etc. | Zygar (29) | ||
| 304893 | 2004-12-18 22:57:00 | "Selecting the highest one you can" is extreme overclocking mate. My motherboard's "highest one" would run my Celeron at around 5 GHz. haha, I "accidentally" did that to one of my school computers once. I bumped the FSB to something overly high and put the multiplier on max. 1.7ghz celeron to 6ghz. Suprisingly, it booted partially- got as far as finishing the POST (and telling me the celeron was at 6ghz) before crashing. The motherboard must have had a safety feature to let you into the BIOS before applying the settings to the CPU. |
Zygar (29) | ||
| 304894 | 2004-12-19 00:04:00 | your school must be slack on security | noone (22) | ||
| 304895 | 2004-12-19 02:55:00 | hahaha 6Ghz!!! awesome!! | hamstar (4) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||