Overclocking P4 3.2 GHz

[SFR]

anyways the higher the mhz the faster the computer...wether you notice performance or not...it's still higher mhz...so it's faster...tha's why ppl do it...see....

What good are numbers if they do not increase performance? Why would I care if my CPU can perform a task faster if it still has to wait the same amout of time to get the data it needs and the send the information on to its next stop?
OC'ing your computer so that you GAIN an edge in performance is understandable. That is what I agree with.

But OC'ing just for the sake of it.. so you can say your CPU runs faster.. even though your system still does the same ruitines in the same amout of time MAKES NO SENSE TO ME.

And if you say you are doing it for practice.. or so you can learn.. well how? You wont notice a difference.

Praetor gave an example of where he benefited from overclocking his processor. I did not see the same benefit in the original posters senerio. Was I wrong.. Only fej180 can tell us when he is finished ...but I have my opinion and you have yours.

 

[pentium III @ 1000 mhz]

"What good are numbers if they do not increase performance?"

but what are the chances it wouldn't increase...certaintly not decreace...and will more than likely go up slightly with clock speed....which you will c in benchmarking mostly ...

"but I have my opinion and you have yours."

i can agree with that, but i plead and argue to differ with the OC'ing.. i have little OC'ing experience but with the 50 and 100 mhz i have gained with previous processors both socket 7 (sad but true) the 50 gain (k6-2+) and the 266 intel (366mhz) i noticed dramatic improvement....nonetheless if the frequency is higher the more likely it is to go faster depending on how high the number, now as far as OVERDOING it ..i don't agree 3.2 would be fine as is or even at the MOST 3.4....tha's alotta speed he's packin' even for stock...now as far as OC'ing to c what you can get out of it...i agree which i belive is what alot of ppl OC for, just to c what THEY can do...maybe for the feeling of accomplishment... so i desire not to diminish the hopes of ppl by telling them they don't need to. i only incorperate it with my sentances, but like preator said..if they ask first matter of buisness is to try to help....

but i do agree with you on him OC'ing the 3.2

 

[SFR]

maybe for the feeling of accomplishment... so i desire not to diminish the hopes of ppl by telling them they don't need to. i only incorperate it with my sentances, but like preator said..if they ask first matter of buisness is to try to help....

Well that is something I can work on

 

[pentium III @ 1000 mhz]

all right, another agreement....this is a good day......well acutally night for me

 

[Cromewell]

i was meaning number wise, not performance wise

I don't understand what you mean here. More Mhz doesn't always mean a processor is faster. Take an AthlonXP 1.8GHz and a Pentium 4 2.0GHz. Which is faster? I'd say the Athlon, most of the time anyway.

 

[SFR]

I don't understand what you mean here. More Mhz doesn't always mean a processor is faster. Take an AthlonXP 1.8GHz and a Pentium 4 2.0GHz. Which is faster? I'd say the Athlon, most of the time anyway.

Very true, but I do not think his comment was intended that way.

Comparing AMD to an OC'ed AMD and then comparing Intel to an OC'ed Intel should have nothing to do with one another.

comparing AMD and Intel in this manner is like the old cliche: "Comparing apples and oranges"

I think pentium III @ 1000 mhz understands that.

If we are talking about AMD, then his thought is that an OC'ed AMD is simply faster than the same, stock AMD....

 

[pentium III @ 1000 mhz]

tyvm fsr, what i mean when you say "I don't understand what you mean here. More Mhz doesn't always mean a processor is faster. Take an AthlonXP 1.8GHz and a Pentium 4 2.0GHz. Which is faster? I'd say the Athlon, most of the time anyway." just because the frequency goes up..don't mean the p/r will go up dramatically with it...but how can you tell unless you bench mark it...right? but if you take a 2200+ and compare it to a p4 at 2.2ghz the p4 wins, check thoms hardware guide...the bench marks are all there..

 

[Cromewell]

yes I understand the clock speed to performance ratings of those CPUs, I just didn't understand the statement

the higher the mhz the faster the computer

when it was paired with

i was meaning number wise, not performance wise

because as I posted, faster clock isn't necessarily a faster processor

 

[pentium III @ 1000 mhz]

how many times must i break it down the bigger the number the higher the mhz the higher the mhz the faster the computer...performance may go up with it..or may stay....okay lets say...pIII=1000mhz p/r=1196mhz...now overclocked pIII=1133 p/r=2020mhz... you c what i mean...the over clocked one is faster cuz of higher mhz

 

[Cromewell]

yes yes, relax. but what if you took that p3 1GHz and OCd it to 1.11GHz and took another p3, 900MHz this time and OCd it 1.1GHz (slower than the first) which would you say is faster now?

 

[pentium III @ 1000 mhz]

the one at 1110mhz is faster, the 1100 is slower, by 10mhz

 

[Cromewell]

yet the 1100MHz would be able to move more data (FSB is clocked higher) and would be faster than the 1110MHz one.
Take the really high end processors that let you change the multiplier. If you run a P4 3.6GHz with 200MHz FSB and another P4 @3.6GHz with 233MHz FSB the latter is the faster computer. Things are not so clear cut as to say that CPU clock speed makes a faster computer.

 

[SFR]

Finally an example!.. I kept posting in broad terms, which many people did not understand. A faster CPU clock speed might not increase the overall system speed because if other parts in the system (e.g. FSB) cannot keep up with the OC'd CPU speed... well then.. what’s the point? ...

 

[Praetor]

anyways the higher the mhz the faster the computer

Simple counter example:
Clock Speed A = 100MHz
Clock Speed B = 133Mhz
Latency A = 2
Latency B = 3

Real Latency A = 2.0000E-8sec
Real Latency A = 2.2556E-8sec
As you can see the faster clocked system runs slower -- sure thats only 2.556E-9sec but that happens for every pass of the clock sequence resulting in a slower overall result

i was meaning number wise, not performance wise

Ok so wtf is the point??? I'll put a 100000000000000000000000000000000 sticker on a 10MHz handheld ... you want that instead of a piddly FX55 which only has a 2.6 sticker on it??

but what are the chances it wouldn't increase...certaintly not decreace...

See my example above

and will more than likely go up slightly with clock speed....which you will c in benchmarking mostly ...

1. See my example above.
2. Define "benchmarks" -- and dont say "3dmark" cuz 3dmark doesnt mean jack

Comparing AMD to an OC'ed AMD and then comparing Intel to an OC'ed Intel should have nothing to do with one another.

Why not? We can take a 3.2Ghz P4, OC it to 3.4Ghz and reasonably comapre it to a stock 3.4Ghz proc ... (same applies for AMD procs)

just because the frequency goes up..don't mean the p/r will go up dramatically with it...but how can you tell unless you bench mark it...right? but if you take a 2200+ and compare it to a p4 at 2.2ghz the p4 wins, check thoms hardware guide...the bench marks are all there..

1. Athlon 1.8GHz ... where do you see PR?
2. THG is biased.
3. Again, benchmarking lets you test optimizations. Whoopeee.

how many times must I break it down the bigger the number the higher the mhz the higher the mhz the faster the computer...performance may go up with it..or may stay....okay lets say...pIII=1000mhz p/r=1196mhz...now overclocked pIII=1133 p/r=2020mhz... you c what I mean...the over clocked one is faster cuz of higher mhz

So you'd rather be using a 5950Ultra rather than a 6800Ultra ..... *Praetor watches and credibility flies out the window* .... in case you didnt notice, clock speed doesnt mean jack. Even a multi-billion dollar company like Intel has come to that realization.

 

[SFR]

Somewhere in there I think you might have quoted me.

It was my impression that AMD is able to perform more (what’s the word I am looking for?) operations.. tasks... procedures... within 1 clock cycle than an intel clock cycle. So comparing a 2.2Ghz Intel Pentium and an 2.2Ghz AMD to each other does not make sense.

But comparing an Intel to an OC'd Intel ... well yeah, duhh.. that is the whole idea.

Anyway your last comment I think sums up the last segment of this thread:

in case you didnt notice, clock speed doesnt mean jack.

 

[Praetor]

It was my impression that AMD is able to perform more (what’s the word I am looking for?) operations.. tasks... procedures... within 1 clock cycle than an intel clock cycle. So comparing a 2.2Ghz Intel Pentium and an 2.2Ghz AMD to each other does not make sense.
But comparing an Intel to an OC'd Intel ... well yeah, duhh.. that is the whole idea.

I agree wholeheartedly however one can still make meaninful comaprisons/contrasts between AMD and Intel procs, OCd or otherwise

 

[SFR]

I agree wholeheartedly however one can still make meaninful comaprisons/contrasts between AMD and Intel procs, OCd or otherwise

I understand. I forgot that my post was in reference to pentium III @ 1000 mhz comments about clock speed. But.. okay, I see where you are going with this.

 

[pentium III @ 1000 mhz]

tha's true about the higher fsb but same cpu clock speed, tha's why one of the pentum 4's (3.44ghz i think) has 1066 mhz fsb, the 800mhz fsb p4's also run much better at 1000 mhz

 

[Cromewell]

nothing has a FSB of 800MHz or 1066 for that matter. That is BUS speed, FSB is 200 and 266 respectively

damn marketers screwing everone up

 

[Praetor]

tha's true about the higher fsb but same cpu clock speed, tha's why one of the pentum 4's (3.44ghz i think) has 1066 mhz fsb, the 800mhz fsb p4's also run much better at 1000 mhz

So are you actually saying anything or..............? (you also do realize that the 1066 is not the same clock speed right as the 800 right?)