On Mittwoch, 16. April 2008, Eric Martin wrote:
> Roy Wright wrote:
> | Grant wrote:
> |>> An oc'ed cpu needs a lot more power&generates a lot more heat. Both
>
> can damage
>
> |>> the CPU AND the mobo (too much power might fry a regulator, or cook
>
> a cap).
>
> |>> Or it might overload the PSU - and then everything is possible. A
>
> damaged
>
> |>> mobo or psu can take a lot of stuff with it to hell.
> |>>
> |>> I hope you learnt your lesson: Overclocking is evil
> |>
> |> I'll never overclock again. I'm realizing how much more important
> |> reliability is compared to performance and low cost.
> |>
> |> - Grant
> |
> | That's been my thoughts until recently. I just built a system using a
> | Q9300 (45nm quad core) and decided to give OC a try. Bumped the clock
> | from 333MHz to 400MHz causing the CPU freq to increase from 2.5MHz to
> | 3.0MHz. DDR2-800 memory not OC'ed. Core temps under 4 core 100% load
> | using burnP5 only increased from 71C to 73C. This was with stock Intel
> | heat sink/fan/thermal paste (just the way Intel wants it). I just
> | ordered a XIGMATEK HDT-S1283 to lower these.
> |
> | IMO, it looks like the Intel 45nm processors have some easy OC headroom.
> |
> | YMMV.
> |
> | Have fun,
> | Roy
>
> This may be untrue, but from what I've see that's the way it goes
> w/OC'ing; Intels have room to be overclocked and AMDs don't. The OP
> overclocked an AMD processor which I've always heard is a bad idea.

no, oc'ing is always a bad idea. And for the young ones: some years ago,
overclocking klilled masses of P4 cpus thanks to electro migration.

Don't oc. Its not worth the risks (silent data corruption, damage).
--
gentoo-user@(protected)