Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (
More info?)
Another post of great help. I found 2004 here, but it's not the
"lite" version.
Thanks
http://www.hwupgrade.it/download/file/1526.html
On Mon, 16 May 2005 17:40:03 GMT, "Phil Weldon"
<notdiscosed@example.com> wrote:
>Speed, core voltage, and temperatures will be more useful than benchmark
>results. The main question is what you did to get your overclock, not what
>the performance results are. Anyway, the 3DMark2005 is a graphics
>performance benchmark. A low level benchmark is more useful for CPU
>overclocks since it will isolate CPU and memory system performance. The
>most useful benchmark is one to which most users have access. The SiSoft
>Sandra 2004 system information utility has been widely used for low level
>benchmarks and the 'lite' version is free. The newest version is SiSoft
>Sandra 2005, but, as I remember, one of the most used benchmarks is not
>included in the 2005 free version. The 2004 free version is ~ 6 MB, and the
>2005 free version is ~ 8 Mbytes. You can find SiSoft Sandra 2005 Lite as a
>free download at http://www.sisoftware.net/ . I believe that the free
>version of SiSoft Sandra 2004 may be more suitable, but at least some
>download sites have pulled that version. Both versions have an extensive
>list of CPU, chipset, and memory type performance numbers for comparision,
>and many enthusiast sites post SiSoft Sandra benchmark results.
>
>
>"Full Name (optional)" <jkhfkdhf@eourfue.com> wrote in message
>news:3m2h81t93hgmu92c8ve6piudkoftepfa8u@4ax.com...
>>I will be glad to post results. So that a maximum number of people can
>> compare the results, I searched the last year's posts to see what
>> benchmarking application is most common. Future Mark Corporation's
>> "3DMark®05" is the winner. However, I'm in Kyiv Ukraine, and pay for
>> data traffic by the meg. 3DMark®05 is almost 300 MB in size, and will
>> cost me about $35 to download.
>>
>> The only current benchmark program I have available is what is
>> included in Norton SystemWorks Premier 2005. Will this suffice? If
>> not, is there a much smaller benchmarking application available for
>> download?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 15 May 2005 21:29:27 GMT, "Phil Weldon"
>> <notdiscosed@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Please post the results. It will help all of us.
>>>
>>>
>>>"Full Name (optional)" <jkhfkdhf@eourfue.com> wrote in message
>>>news
4af819975ceian17oujm4gv3vfetqguf5@4ax.com...
>>>>A VERY good methodology and structure for trial and error. Thanks! I
>>>> will try this approach. If you are interested, I will post the
>>>> results.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 13 May 2005 22:40:50 GMT, "Phil Weldon"
>>>> <notdiscosed@example.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>What questions are you asking?
>>>>>
>>>>>ALL Intel CPUs since the Pentium II 300 are multiplier locked. The only
>>>>>way
>>>>>to overclock an Intel CPU is to raise the FrontSide Bus speed. Your
>>>>>Celeron
>>>>>800 CPU are no more locked than any other Intel CPUs in the last five or
>>>>>so
>>>>>years. Perhaps you are changing the clock multipler in the BIOS; this
>>>>>does
>>>>>nothing at all because THE CLOCK MULTIPLIER IS LOCKED. You can ONLY
>>>>>overclock by raising the FrontSide Bus speed.
>>>>>
>>>>>If you want to overclock, you must, like everyone else, use the 'trail
>>>>>and
>>>>>error method'. If you don't have the patience, then don't overclock.
>>>>>
>>>>>To overclock, use your manual and follow these general directions for
>>>>>changing settings.
>>>>>
>>>>>The steps will likely include
>>>>> LOCK the AGP/PCI bus speeds to 66.7/33.3
>>>>> Make sure the memory you have can operate at the FrontSide
>>>>> Bus/clock
>>>>>speeds you try.
>>>>>
>>>>> A. raise the clock speed (1/4 the FrontSide Bus speed) by a few
>>>>>percent
>>>>> test the system stability
>>>>> IF the system is unstable
>>>>> B. try raising the CPU core voltage in the smallest
>>>>>increment possible (DO NOT RAISE it more than 0.2 volts above
>>>>>specifications)
>>>>> test the system for stability
>>>>> IF (the system is unstable AND the core voltage
>>>>> is
>>>>>0.2 volts above specification) THEN go to C.
>>>>> IF (the system is unstable AND the core voltage
>>>>> is
>>>>>NOT 0.2 volts above specifications) THEN go to B.
>>>>> IF the system is stable THEN go to A
>>>>> C. Reduce the clock speed to by small increments
>>>>> until
>>>>>the system is stable.
>>>>> THEN try lowering the core voltage by small
>>>>>increments until the system is unstable,
>>>>> THEN raise the core voltage to the last stable
>>>>> level
>>>>>at the current FrontSide Bus Speed.
>>>>>
>>>>>Keep in mind that the quality and design of the motherboard, the
>>>>>chipset,
>>>>>the power supply, the memory, cooling solution, AND idiosyncrasies of
>>>>>your
>>>>>particular CPU affect overclocking outcomes. The knowledge,
>>>>>organization,
>>>>>and patience of the overclocker are also important factors.
>>>>>
>>>>>Read twice, cut once.
>>>>>
>>>>>Phil Weldon
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Full Name (optional)" <jkhfkdhf@eourfue.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:2g7a81l1856b1sp983d1ggf0l7o21sonv9@4ax.com...
>>>>>>I have the manual. I have an Abit BP6 that I use with two Celeron
>>>>>> 800s. They have some "overclock-lock" that the board's clock settings
>>>>>> won't overcome.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have some suggestions on what would be a good stable speed? I
>>>>>> don't want to use "trial and error" until I'm exhausted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram