Madshrimps Forum Madness

Madshrimps Forum Madness (https://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/)
-   WebNews (https://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/f22/)
-   -   Overclocking the G0 SLACR Q6600 to 4GHz (https://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/f22/overclocking-g0-slacr-q6600-4ghz-36588/)

Sidney 19th August 2007 14:24

Overclocking the G0 SLACR Q6600 to 4GHz
 
Who doesn’t love a highly overclockable CPU? There isn’t many of us! Every once in a while we'll hear of a golden CPU from someone, this has been going on since the good ole' Celeron 300A days when 450MHz was a walk in the park. As time has gone on there’s been golden Athlons and Intel processors.

The latest processor to join the ranks of this highly competitive field is the Q6600 in the G0 form. With a lower stock voltage compared to the B3 stepping, along with a huge test field it seems clear that the G0 is a real winner.

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/11...ghz/index.html

jmke 19th August 2007 14:29

The Q6600 is nowhere near Celeron 300A area, when you overclocked the 300A you actually noticed an improved performance for your PC, the Q6600 running at stock or 4ghz... no difference in majority of apps and games.

Rutar 19th August 2007 14:45

How much of those 640W can be accounted to the HD2900s?


and, 1.66V =P

Kougar 19th August 2007 16:59

Dunno. But if you want an idea... ~350watts is my usual load figure with a stock 8800GTS. After overclocking the Q6600 I am seeing a peak of ~460watts at 3.8Ghz + 1.46v. Clock speed raises the power draw + temps more than raising the volts will, interestingly.

thorgal 19th August 2007 17:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rutar (Post 152982)
and, 1.66V =P

Yeah indead, this is not what I'd call a stable overclock. Anyway, I guess some of the G0 Q6600's do clock ok :)

The Senile Doctor 19th August 2007 18:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmke (Post 152981)
The Q6600 is nowhere near Celeron 300A area, when you overclocked the 300A you actually noticed an improved performance for your PC, the Q6600 running at stock or 4ghz... no difference in majority of apps and games.

perfectly true...

Sidney 19th August 2007 18:25

Bottom line is if you cannot up the speed on today's processors, multi-core is simply a marketing scheme.

The same applies to graphic card, unless everyone owns a 30" screen. However, it will get most enthusiasts excited.

For 3D workstation, it does have the merit. Then, heavy 3D drawings are limited by memory size constraint and 64-bit OS is not widely supported.

jmke 19th August 2007 18:36

same doesn't apply to GFX cards!! recent games need new GPU to run, simple as that.

If single core CPU goes to 5Ghz it will not push performance that much higher, as bottleneck is no longer memory bandwidth, raw CPU power, but disk transfer speed and VGA (for games).

if you want a seriously noticeable performance boost, install a RAM drive which gives you 2000MB/S at least read/write speeds, games loading times will again be limited to CPU power:)


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:16.

Powered by vBulletin® - Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO