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 7554E13862C for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:17:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CD8F421C0BD; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:16:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-la0-f54.google.com (mail-la0-f54.google.com [209.85.215.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F43A21C04C for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:16:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-la0-f54.google.com with SMTP id gw10so8301877lab.27 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 09:16:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jh5um9eOfr4AfoLHfq/TaJBQdT6e8nyfsRMYJ61W8aI=; b=D+yeUx6i2my8ELfQV9cqAuXvjAFBMjAr+h0lWfF0ibnGTXbUvCqSyM7wxVyVlSkK4Z KSFprBuyLW9ChNpUnAarw1NuV7Mkvixxv7u4I/mT/dnZ/tY5c5uHiSjCjJKls8b3Evz7 99ZHKzv9h3pzAuMdFb36tAra2exiDiIBRtZHihyipgl+v5cQR5YGsfd2glHj/M/x4tzC jf8/6qmmKN5T3NY5wQZ2TQC4JRnJg0Ath1B/e1x2veaPpqBuUsyhsYDTYKgBdnRAdpsD aYvq0jLFtMzvT/M8JEj28m1Gr09HtavNTnU+sokliRucbROOxlQPBUO2ct7W1ANGizil +F7Q== X-Received: by 10.112.27.34 with SMTP id q2mr1034629lbg.56.1358961411266; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 09:16:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.178.21] (p4FC60047.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [79.198.0.71]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id to7sm8661364lab.13.2013.01.23.09.16.49 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 23 Jan 2013 09:16:50 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <51001B00.6030102@googlemail.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 18:16:48 +0100 From: Volker Armin Hemmann User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130118 Thunderbird/17.0.2 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> <50FFD2EB.9030402@gmail.com> <50FFFD1E.3020701@nileshgr.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 2b95a5fd-9f67-40ea-a013-022f1b793381 X-Archives-Hash: b2901d0f2aad47014a03ade109af631b Am 23.01.2013 16:35, schrieb Nikos Chantziaras: > On 23/01/13 17:09, Nilesh Govindrajan wrote: >> On Wednesday 23 January 2013 07:52:03 PM IST, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: >>> [...] >>> In my experience, most of the time you can overclock. The issue is >>> with the user not knowing exactly how to do it. You need to >>> understand a few things and how they affect each other. It's not just >>> a knob you can turn. >> >> That pretty much applies to me. I don't know much about hardware stuff. >> Regarding your 1 Ghz overclock, you probably have good components in >> terms of RAM & SMPS. >> When I bought this rig in 2008, I knew nothing about good components, >> blindly trusted local vendor... also internet shopping wasn't advanced >> here. >> So pretty much substandard components. > > The part that's really important is the mainboard. RAM doesn't > matter. In my case, I had pretty basic 800MHz DDR2 RAM. Raising the > FSB would bring it above that, so I changed the DRAM ratio to 1:1, and > the RAM then ran at only 600Mhz. > > That was the starting point to rule out RAM problems. After that, I > raised FSB but kept the VCore constant until I hit the first > instabilities. When that happened, I raised VCore a bit. Rinse and > repeat, until the VCore was still below the maximum recommendation by > Intel. That happened at 3.4GHz (378MHz FSB * 9 CPU multiplier = > 3402MHz CPU clock.) The E6600 CPU I got was an average sample. > Others were running it at 3.6GHz (or even higher with water cooling.) > > This was a process that took about 3 days to complete (needs a lot of > stability testing.) The good thing about those older CPUs was that > the performance boost I got by OCing wasn't just scaling linearly with > the CPU frequency. It was scaling *better* than that, because raising > the FSB also made the mainboard itself perform better and with lower > latencies. > and here we are - the point where the suspension of disbelief ends. All you may have gained you threw away with the slower ram - and you are trying to tell us that your rig was faster? You do know that with today's CPUs the CPU is not the bottleneck - the slow as molasses, no speed bump for 10 years ram is. (just look at the internal clock rate of dram chips - and you realize that ddr1-3 are pretty much the same crap).