On Mittwoch, 16. April 2008, Eric Martin wrote: > Roy Wright wrote: > | Grant wrote: > |>> An oc'ed cpu needs a lot more power&generates a lot more heat. Both > > can damage > > |>> the CPU AND the mobo (too much power might fry a regulator, or cook > > a cap). > > |>> Or it might overload the PSU - and then everything is possible. A > > damaged > > |>> mobo or psu can take a lot of stuff with it to hell. > |>> > |>> I hope you learnt your lesson: Overclocking is evil > |> > |> I'll never overclock again. I'm realizing how much more important > |> reliability is compared to performance and low cost. > |> > |> - Grant > | > | That's been my thoughts until recently. I just built a system using a > | Q9300 (45nm quad core) and decided to give OC a try. Bumped the clock > | from 333MHz to 400MHz causing the CPU freq to increase from 2.5MHz to > | 3.0MHz. DDR2-800 memory not OC'ed. Core temps under 4 core 100% load > | using burnP5 only increased from 71C to 73C. This was with stock Intel > | heat sink/fan/thermal paste (just the way Intel wants it). I just > | ordered a XIGMATEK HDT-S1283 to lower these. > | > | IMO, it looks like the Intel 45nm processors have some easy OC headroom. > | > | YMMV. > | > | Have fun, > | Roy > > This may be untrue, but from what I've see that's the way it goes > w/OC'ing; Intels have room to be overclocked and AMDs don't. The OP > overclocked an AMD processor which I've always heard is a bad idea.
no, oc'ing is always a bad idea. And for the young ones: some years ago, overclocking klilled masses of P4 cpus thanks to electro migration. Don't oc. Its not worth the risks (silent data corruption, damage). -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
