Prev: Is my new power supply DOA? Am I missing something here?
Next: Surge / Ground / Lightning
From: Shadow36 on 6 May 2008 22:23

"John Doe" <jdoe(a)usenetlove.invalid> wrote in message
news:aJ7Uj.2205$nW2.318(a)nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
> "Shadow36" <no(a)no.com> wrote:
>
>> "JAT23" <JeffTaylor1985(a)gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in
>
>>> IMO, overclocking isn't worth the few extra
>>> bits of speed. You risk the life of your processor, and things
>>> can easily overheat if everything is not set up just right.
>>>
>>> Overclocking made more sense back in the days of 500mhz
>>> PC's...but not so much these days. Of the two processors you
>>> mentioned here, go with the less expensive one and spend that
>>> extra $$ on more RAM.
>>>
>> Overclocking is only dangerous if you push the vcore too high
>> (running it too hot). It's not dangerous at all if you take the
>> time and research what you are doing.
>
> It's really only dangerous in your head if you imagine what you are
> doing is very important. It probably isn't.

It's unfortunate this newsgroup has to deal with the ramblings that go on in
YOUR head.

>For the same reason,
> any speed improvement makes little difference.

Are you are still using Pentium 60? Or maybe even a 486 since faster speeds
make no difference?

>Faster CPUs usually
> come with other features that make them faster. If I couldn't afford
> enough CPU power and I wanted a little bit more speed to play the
> latest games a little less choppy, I might overclock. Even if you
> don't believe overclocking damages a processor, be prepared to lie
> if/when you sell it.

I wouldn't lie. I wouldn't need to. I don't push the vcore higher than than
the max according to Intel. My temp isn't even close to being dangerous. My
chip isn't being degraded anymore than a stock chip runnign at 3.0 Ghz.
It's funny how you berate overclockers on this forum as if we are stupid or
aren't getting any real benefit from doing it. Can you honestly tell me that
overclocking from 2.13 ghz to 3.0 Ghz offers no improvement? And if not,
does going from 2.13 to a stock 3.0 chip make no difference.





From: overload on 5 May 2008 14:57
On Sat, 03 May 2008 16:17:00 GMT, "Fishface" <invalid(a)ddress.ok?>
wrote:

>John Doe wrote:
<snip>
>
>> Besides, many of us grown-ups really couldn't care less about
>> overclocking.
>
>This really has nothing about being grown-up. It's a choice we have
>each made based upon different perceptions of the same reality.
>While I have made a significant investment of time to insure stability, I
>would do the with a stock system.
>
<snip>
>I think you are putting too much significance on three gigahertz, perhaps
>comparing clock speed to what you have now. My wife's XP system has an
>E4500 at stock 2.2 GHz speed with 2 GB DDR2 and integrated graphics.
>In "normal use," which I define as not 3D gaming and not video editing, I
>can't tell the difference in speed. Even her most demanding Flash based
>Webkinz games play smoothly.
>
My 10year old's eight year old Asus CUSL2 and EB800 PIII with 800 FSB
is more than adequate for the most demanding Flash based Webkinz
games. If you are playing with Webkinz, you shouldn't be talking about
adults.

Jim


From: overload on 6 May 2008 17:03
On Tue, 06 May 2008 02:59:52 GMT, "Fishface" <invalid(a)ddress.ok?>
wrote:

>overload(a)spam.ftc.gov wrote:
>
>> My 10year old's eight year old Asus CUSL2 and EB800 PIII with 800 FSB
>> is more than adequate for the most demanding Flash based Webkinz
>> games.
>
>There's one called "Home After Dark." Try that one on his computer, and on
>yours. Then tell me it plays OK. It even lags on the P4P800-SE with Pentium-M
>at 2.4 GHz with 6800 video and 2 GB RAM

Tried it. Works fine on the eight year old Asus CUSL2 and EB800 PIII
with 800 FSB. I believe there's 512Mb RAM and an Asus V7700 series
GeForce2GTS. Don't remember exactly which disks are in the system, but
they are 7200 rpm and 20, 40, and 80 GB arranged as DASD. It's running
either Win2K SP4 or WinXP SP2 at the moment. (I use the classic
interface on all of my machines, so they look alike.)

Ain't that a pisser -- you have a machine that's three times faster,
with four times more RAM, and it's slower than an eight year old box.

>> If you are playing with Webkinz, you shouldn't be talking about adults.
>
>What?! My wife does it and my six year old does it. I play "Home After
>Dark" sometimes to help him build-up his Kinzcash. I am still a teenager,
>you know-- I'm umpteen.

And my 10-year old daughter has far too many webkinz. At the moment,
she's swatting Wacky Zingos over a thousand feet on Webkinz World.
(You have to buy the Wacky Zingo and register it to get to that level
of the game.)

She's learning how to animate a mermaid in Poser 7 which doesn't run
on her machine. (you want the kid to learn something, get them
something that interests them. She gets a new machine soon so she can
do animation without using mine.)

Speaking of still being a teenager (umpteen), remember that children
shouldn't have children.

Jim



From: John Doe on 6 May 2008 22:54
"Shadow36" <no no.com> wrote:

> "John Doe" <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote in message

>> "Shadow36" <no no.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "JAT23" <JeffTaylor1985 gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in
>>
>>>> IMO, overclocking isn't worth the few extra bits of speed. You
>>>> risk the life of your processor, and things can easily overheat
>>>> if everything is not set up just right.
>>>>
>>>> Overclocking made more sense back in the days of 500mhz
>>>> PC's...but not so much these days. Of the two processors you
>>>> mentioned here, go with the less expensive one and spend that
>>>> extra $$ on more RAM.
>>>>
>>> Overclocking is only dangerous if you push the vcore too high
>>> (running it too hot). It's not dangerous at all if you take the
>>> time and research what you are doing.
>>
>> It's really only dangerous in your head if you imagine what you
>> are doing is very important. It probably isn't.
>
> It's unfortunate this newsgroup has to deal with the ramblings
> that go on in YOUR head.

We have to deal with lots of things, including silly overclockers
who think they are on the cutting edge of technology because they
know how to go into the BIOS and flip a switch or two.

>> For the same reason, any speed improvement makes little
>> difference.
>
> Are you are still using Pentium 60?

As of today, I'm using an E6850.

> Or maybe even a 486 since faster speeds make no difference?

I guess you don't read very well/much. As follows, I said faster
CPUs usually include other things besides a faster clock.
Increasing the clock speed doesn't do much compared to buying a
current CPU.

>> Faster CPUs usually come with other features that make them
>> faster. If I couldn't afford enough CPU power and I wanted a
>> little bit more speed to play the latest games a little less
>> choppy, I might overclock. Even if you don't believe
>> overclocking damages a processor, be prepared to lie if/when you
>> sell it.
>
> I wouldn't lie. I wouldn't need to.

Bullshit liar.

> My chip isn't being degraded anymore than a stock chip runnign at
> 3.0 Ghz.

Says who?

> It's funny how you berate overclockers on this forum as if we are
> stupid

Every time I hear someone refer to a USENET group as a forum, I get
the feeling they aren't from here, like they started out on website
forums. There are better groups to discuss what you think are the
fine points of overclocking. As I said (in a nutshell), if I
couldn't afford to buy a CPU that runs what I need to run, I would
consider overclocking if I wasn't concerned about having to lie when
I resell the thing.











>
>
>
>
>
>
> Path: flpi142.ffdc.sbc.com!newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!newscon04.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!bigfeed.bellsouth.net!bigfeed2.bellsouth.net!news.bellsouth.net!hwmnpeer01.phx!news.highwinds-media.com!hw-filter.phx!newsfe13.phx.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
> From: "Shadow36" <no no.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> References: <9apSj.12796$GE1.3718 nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com> <TKCdnX4Uvv6JVr3VnZ2dnUVZ_h-vnZ2d giganews.com> <_a5Uj.3980$kQ3.1926 newsfe11.phx> <aJ7Uj.2205$nW2.318 nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com>
> Subject: Re: Differences between quad core and faster dual core?
> Lines: 51
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
> X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080506-0, 05/06/2008), Outbound message
> X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
> Message-ID: <eo8Uj.183065$nr1.115751 newsfe13.phx>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.255.203.94
> X-Complaints-To: newsmaster cox.net
> X-Trace: newsfe13.phx 1210126986 24.255.203.94 (Tue, 06 May 2008 19:23:06 MST)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 19:23:06 MST
> Organization: Cox
> Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 21:23:11 -0500
> Xref: prodigy.net alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:506109
> X-Received-Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 22:23:07 EDT (flpi142.ffdc.sbc.com)
>
>


From: JAT23 on 6 May 2008 17:18

> GUEST wrote:
> I guess the number of cores isn't really the issue, the same
> question would apply to single versus dual.
>
> What's the difference between a quad core CPU and a faster dual
core
> CPU? Assume both are roughly equivalent overall. What sort of
things
> does faster processing allow? What sort of things does more
> processing allow? An explanation or references would be
appreciated.
> I might do a little research in the meantime.
>
> This is just a guess.
> Maybe more processing power would benefit consistent multitasking,
> enabling processes that run continuously and simultaneously. Faster
> would allow momentary bursts of processing. But what if you have
> some tasks continuously using up the CPU, that burst is going to
> interfere with those tasks isn't it? Or maybe faster is useful when
> you have lots of tasks that are momentary. But what if they
> coincide? Maybe it's a matter of degrees in the latter/faster case,
> the CPU usage bursts aren't going to coincide frequently so usually
> those process activities would benefit by the greater speed.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> yeah, I'm giddy

IMO, overclocking isn't worth the few extra
bits of speed. You risk the life of your processor, and things can
easily overheat if everything is not set up just right.

Overclocking made more sense back in the days of 500mhz PC's...but not
so much these days. Of the two processors you mentioned here, go with
the less expensive one and spend that extra $$ on more RAM.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Is my new power supply DOA? Am I missing something here?
Next: Surge / Ground / Lightning