From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74A40138620 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 12:09:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BBD1D21C070; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 12:09:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yh0-f52.google.com (mail-yh0-f52.google.com [209.85.213.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2556721C03D for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 12:09:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yh0-f52.google.com with SMTP id q46so90926yhf.25 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 04:09:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=0nLnm7973ye8TJDzYpEXP9LNXu4ZPFWhmFsuHZltr0U=; b=pFPEZM1L+4wFciWEwoi4c0fUurHcFupCM+ZC1okuMB3V3WCyJVqg5LpRhzS8rLV1dz ahhY+wmyWk1btuzkM7Wb2T2iiZp4vE0XARDZYe9dmV09Gp9qduVUXpvLaLI3G08CqS6w kcOjuxW/Y05wD2/s81z3QSPQGCuPuRInXldDHCQnoUwmvHiyEXu6i3C+XWEF6wm/oWRq esOecYdjz9bxuA712iWqCz4zmDfe3vnkcNpp3qOQP3ae4tahn0wuNn3eQih4GKIoZLi0 cuJ9+E7PPXhNbJVU2Xgd31nc5J9H9T8gQ4JS49qquPtOYe7WkJF+CFL4D8kufrNRyg9W f0BQ== X-Received: by 10.236.141.97 with SMTP id f61mr1043539yhj.69.1358942958223; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 04:09:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.2.5] (adsl-74-240-57-140.jan.bellsouth.net. [74.240.57.140]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h38sm3521433ani.7.2013.01.23.04.09.16 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 23 Jan 2013 04:09:17 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <50FFD2EB.9030402@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 06:09:15 -0600 From: Dale User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:18.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/18.0 SeaMonkey/2.15.1 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Overclocking CPU causes segmentation fault References: <50FE429A.8060708@nileshgr.com> <50FEDC01.9080306@googlemail.com> <50FEDE38.2010100@nileshgr.com> <50FF4307.1010609@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 57136f0a-a2e1-488d-8215-a9afbbd09c62 X-Archives-Hash: 85799dc6014a7af96197103faa96276a Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > On 23/01/13 03:55, Dale wrote: >> [...] >> I tired overclocking once a good while back. It just wasn't worth it. > > I've been running a Core 2 Duo from 2.4Ghz to 3.4Ghz for over three > years. Instead of a new CPU, I only bought a €30 cooler. > > Oh, it *was* totally worth it. Mainly for games, where the > performance difference was really dramatic. > > > I doubt most get that lucky tho. After all, overclocking is mostly luck. Some CPU's won't overclock that much long term because of either the CPU itself or some other component that can't handle the increase. When you overclock, you are searching for that weak link. Most of the time, you find that weak link. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!