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 C7BCF13862C for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:21:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5277E21C0DF; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:21:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oa0-f43.google.com (mail-oa0-f43.google.com [209.85.219.43]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B013D21C0C7 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:21:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id k1so8709101oag.16 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 09:21:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=ODESeMM4AZq9qDCE0eN6Y6rOPOf0IaHLu5Qq9EnuJvA=; b=K6U1hB9ZCR5y4D07EXDKBDKqBczWe6MrEZluPUBM38zH+q+GezUYHfnBi9ZeN/2Vwa VDnoE/AD+POc0iQGo+fDh64bvHwgEb5ehzsm+XlSAzJPjvPlMmAYHnIS1ZONlw3vqN96 mNkBZ2YZcPNdeZgyM5uuvF1zuSkS7viEOFUwqb7jmn10WCVtNCPk97khijPl7eGMeEO5 9RTppmKTbklpLRV0q5KAiUdLui67Nl+khgg9hJjKJAB4mczs4CAUylogGBf1wh9HeIN1 DvYXd8nsof57lXjQym1wKmFgxLrH77HiTQlAHHKuEolkKXAAVlyKAhMELFZqMPyD6Ze3 PzOg== 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 X-Received: by 10.182.226.103 with SMTP id rr7mr1570928obc.76.1358961665906; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 09:21:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.76.20.243 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 09:21:05 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <51001B00.6030102@googlemail.com> 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> <51001B00.6030102@googlemail.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 12:21:05 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Overclocking CPU causes segmentation fault From: Michael Mol To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: d79f1b93-3a43-4aef-ad41-da95ccc2d837 X-Archives-Hash: ffdb747335fb514f54c8c9eb30115c19 On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > 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). > Volker, in applications speficially tuned to keep their hot data small enough to stay in CPU cache (so, anything with a "frames per second" measurement), overclocking the CPU would still see performance improvements. Cache misses are always painful. -- :wq