Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

will overclocking help downloading much

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
March 28, 2006 5:50:10 AM

question to anyone whom may have experience, i have a amd64 3000, running on 1024 of geil ddr 3200 (2.5.4.4.8) on a gigabyte ultra sli motherboard, i run dsl and have my account maxed at 1056 mb/s down (never get that fast) i run utorrent and iam hoping to maybe overclock and increase down speeds, is that possible, iam i wasting my time???
March 28, 2006 6:23:20 AM

1. Overclocking aplies to CPU, RAM, graphics card and northbridge chipset. Not on the comunication devices.
2. Your bandwidth is probably 1024kbps or 1Mbps. 1056Mbps is bandwidth that not all internet providers have installed for all their customers. There is no hard disk that is able to read or write 1056Mbps, you will need at least 4 hard drives at 10000RPM in RAID stripe.
3. The bandwidth is limited from your internet provider. The only option is to pay for better link.
March 28, 2006 8:30:30 AM

hardware OC will not help you...use same download software
Related resources
March 28, 2006 10:46:34 AM

Quote:
question to anyone whom may have experience, i have a amd64 3000, running on 1024 of geil ddr 3200 (2.5.4.4.8) on a gigabyte ultra sli motherboard, i run dsl and have my account maxed at 1056 mb/s down (never get that fast) i run utorrent and iam hoping to maybe overclock and increase down speeds, is that possible, iam i wasting my time???


No home internet connection is 1056 mb/s.

I think you mean 1536 Kbps (which is about 155 KB/sec, or about 1/7000th as fast as you think).

You are mixing up Megabytes (1 MB) and Megabits (0.125 MB, if not less).

You may also be mixing up Megabytes (1 MB) and Kilobits (0.125 KB, or 128 bytes).

Use your head and find the bottleneck.
March 28, 2006 11:18:53 AM

OC'ing or upgrading your hardware will not improve your upload or download speeds at all.

Even a better TCP/IP stack would not really improve your download speeds because they are limited by your ISP / DSL provider and the bandwidth of the network nodes you are communicating with as well as Internet weather.

To get better performance you have to either upgrade your DSL service or upgrade to another type of service such as Cable, Fiber to home, leased line, etc if it they are available in your area.
March 28, 2006 11:22:47 AM

Quote:
question to anyone whom may have experience, i have a amd64 3000, running on 1024 of geil ddr 3200 (2.5.4.4.8) on a gigabyte ultra sli motherboard, i run dsl and have my account maxed at 1056 mb/s down (never get that fast) i run utorrent and iam hoping to maybe overclock and increase down speeds, is that possible, iam i wasting my time???


No home internet connection is 1056 mb/s.

I think you mean 1536 Kbps (which is about 155 KB/sec, or about 1/7000th as fast as you think).

You are mixing up Megabytes (1 MB) and Megabits (0.125 MB, if not less).

Use your head and find the bottleneck.

LOL... WOW..
Just think if you could d/l 1056MB/S

Heh, anyways to add to clear that up, this is my connection

From Test My Net :

:::.. Download Stats ..:::
Connection is:: 8548 Kbps about 8.5 Mbps (tested with 5983 kB)
Download Speed is:: 1043 kB/s
Tested From:: http://testmy.net (server1)
Test Time:: 2006/03/28 - 6:29am
Bottom Line:: 153X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 0.98 sec
Tested from a 5983 kB file and took 5.734 seconds to complete
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.1) Gecko/20060111 Firefox/1.5.0.1
Diagnosis: Awesome! 20% + : 96.64 % faster than the average for host (cox.net)
Validation Link:: http://testmy.net/stats/id-MIPCBYFRG
March 28, 2006 11:45:35 AM

Nice :-D

What kind of connection do you have?

Connection is:: 4664 Kbps about 4.7 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB)
Download Speed is:: 569 kB/s
Tested From:: http://testmy.net (main)
Test Time:: 2006/03/28 - 5:41am
Bottom Line:: 83X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 1.8 sec
Tested from a 2992 kB file and took 5.255 seconds to complete
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.8.0.1) Gecko/20060124 Firefox/1.5.0.1
Diagnosis: Looks Great : 2.66 % faster than the average for host (rr.com)
Validation Link:: http://testmy.net/stats/id-B0YKH6JIT
a b à CPUs
March 28, 2006 11:45:45 AM

"There is no hard disk that is able to read or write 1056Mbps, you will need at least 4 hard drives at 10000RPM in RAID stripe.
"

Even a 10k rpm drive is limited to 70 mb/sec sustained throughput; he'd need a lot more than jsut a RAID 5 to keep up with 1 gb/sec, but, I think you're right, he prob meant 1.056 mbps... :-)
March 28, 2006 11:56:59 AM

Quote:
"There is no hard disk that is able to read or write 1056Mbps, you will need at least 4 hard drives at 10000RPM in RAID stripe.
"

Even a 10k rpm drive is limited to 70 mb/sec sustained throughput; he'd need a lot more than jsut a RAID 5 to keep up with 1 gb/sec, but, I think you're right, he prob meant 1.056 mbps... :-)




You can achieve that with a RAMDisk or solid state disk.

You could also achieve about 1.2GB/sec with a 4 channel U320 controller with a few 15,000 or 10,000 RPM U320 drives in RAID or even U320 SCSI solid state disks.

Similarly you could get 800MB/sec reads in RAID 5 with a 3Ware 9550SX controller and about 380MB/sec writes also in RAID 5.

You could get more performance by adding more controllers if your system has enough bandwidth.
March 28, 2006 12:04:09 PM

Be more like 20 x HDDs in RAID-6, over 2 controllers each with 533 MB/sec (ideally 800/1066 MB/sec+) PCI-X (100/133 MHz x 64 bit wide) interfaces on their own (not-shared) PCI-X tunnels.... and even then I have my doubts when streaming just one file.

Bearing in mind you'd a need 'more than' 10 Gbps network interface (eg: 2 of them), also on their own tunnel(s), and a machine at the other end either decoding some very high resolution / uncompressed video, or with enough disk subsystem write performance to keep up with the ability of the above.

Costs would be quite high, but I suspect it has already been done.

http://store.sun.com/CMTemplate/CEServlet?process=SunSt...

Pretty expensive for 'just 4-TB of Capacity', but likely upgradable to 33-TB or more, even then doubt the network interface is fast enough.

A 'cheap' cluster of 8 machines, all using Dual-Gigabit Ethernet and 160 MB/sec+ per machine would be able to do 'similar' workloads for a fraction of the US$160,000+ of the above machine. :p 

At 1 GB/sec all my storage would fill up within 60 minutes.
March 28, 2006 12:27:32 PM

Quote:
Be more like 20 x HDDs in RAID-6, over 2 controllers each with 533 MB/sec (ideally 800/1066 MB/sec+) PCI-X (100/133 MHz x 64 bit wide) interfaces on their own (not-shared) PCI-X tunnels.... and even then I have my doubts when streaming just one file.

Bearing in mind you'd a need 'more than' 10 Gbps network interface (eg: 2 of them), also on their own tunnel(s), and a machine at the other end either decoding some very high resolution / uncompressed video, or with enough disk subsystem write performance to keep up with the ability of the above.

Costs would be quite high, but I suspect it has already been done.

http://store.sun.com/CMTemplate/CEServlet?process=SunSt...

Pretty expensive for 'just 4-TB of Capacity', but likely upgradable to 33-TB or more, even then doubt the network interface is fast enough.

A 'cheap' cluster of 8 machines, all using Dual-Gigabit Ethernet and 160 MB/sec+ per machine would be able to do 'similar' workloads for a fraction of the US$160,000+ of the above machine. :p 

At 1 GB/sec all my storage would fill up within 60 minutes.




Several Tyan Dual Opteron boards ( such as the S2882 ) can already do that.

They have 2 PCI-X bridges and can push 1064MB/sec on one bridge and 800MB/sec on the other bridge.

Newer Tyan boards ( such as the S2895, S4881, S4885, etc ) with PCI-Express slots could use PCI-Express controllers for even more bandwidth for a lot less than $160,000


I can build a machine with that amount of bandwidth and a few TB of storage for $10K - $20K.
March 28, 2006 12:46:30 PM

Quote:
Nice :-D

What kind of connection do you have?

Connection is:: 4664 Kbps about 4.7 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB)
Download Speed is:: 569 kB/s
Tested From:: http://testmy.net (main)
Test Time:: 2006/03/28 - 5:41am
Bottom Line:: 83X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 1.8 sec
Tested from a 2992 kB file and took 5.255 seconds to complete
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.8.0.1) Gecko/20060124 Firefox/1.5.0.1
Diagnosis: Looks Great : 2.66 % faster than the average for host (rr.com)
Validation Link:: http://testmy.net/stats/id-B0YKH6JIT


Cable Connection

9MB down
1MB up - That testmy.net showed 905kb up. Guess it is in check, when I'm perhaps the only one up testing 5:41am :wink:
March 28, 2006 1:00:45 PM

Very nice :-D

What kind of cable? How do I get it?

I can see it's cox. Those transfer rates are almost 100% better than the average cox connection.

Where are you located?
March 28, 2006 1:09:07 PM

Quote:
Very nice :-D

What kind of cable? How do I get it?

I can see it's cox. Those transfer rates are almost 100% better than the average cox connection.

Where are you located?


LOL

I'm in Nebraska.

Yes Cox Cable - Internet - Digital TV - Digital Phone - All 3 services on the same copper :D  Of course we only have TV/Internet :lol: 
March 28, 2006 1:13:48 PM

That's awesome! :-D

Are you paying extra for double the bandwidth?
March 28, 2006 1:22:11 PM

Nope.. only catch we had was to upgrade our cable modem.

Funny thing is, our original modem stop working. So they charged us for a new one capable for their highspeed, no extra cost for the service. The modem was around 45 bucks.

When they tested it, he verified we had 9mb d/l. Though, that was an internal server on their netork. :wink:
March 28, 2006 1:35:37 PM

Quote:
Nope.. only catch we had was to upgrade our cable modem.

Funny thing is, our original modem stop working. So they charged us for a new one capable for their highspeed, no extra cost for the service. The modem was around 45 bucks.

When they tested it, he verified we had 9mb d/l. Though, that was an internal server on their netork. :wink:



That's REALLY awesome! :-D

Wish I could get that here. :cry: 
March 28, 2006 1:51:59 PM

Basicaly,what everyone is saying is no overclocking does not help with downloading as you can only download as fast as your internet connection from your ISP.
March 28, 2006 2:01:50 PM

Quote:
Basicaly,what everyone is saying is no overclocking does not help with downloading as you can only download as fast as your internet connection from your ISP.



The OP's best bet is to upgrade to cable.

Cable is typically much faster than DSL.

As you can see above Grimmy and I get much better performance on cable.
March 28, 2006 2:05:59 PM

just to throw in my little story, somebody way above mentiond it would be cool to dl at over 1000mb sec well at the college I go to I did. I was dl Ubuntu linux and it started at 400mbs and went to 1gbs about half way through and stayed there (not for long bc it was done insanely quick). This was over christmas holiday so only a few of us that were working were on the network.

most of the time I dl @ about 100mbs to 300mbs (from servers of course not torrent or p to p networks, thoes I get a crapy 50mbs at most)
March 28, 2006 2:20:58 PM

Not only will OC NOT improve download, but if you use a speedstep/cool'n'quite type utility (I use rightmark) you may find that it runs it in low power mode (downloads, defrags, diskchecks all run in low voltage mode for me).
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
March 29, 2006 1:47:56 AM

i see your comments and yeah iam confussing the mp and kb i will read up on them...question though bottle neck how do i find it....i guess thats using my head, p.s i have optus dsl at the highest speed.
March 29, 2006 2:57:14 AM

Quote:
Nice :-D

What kind of connection do you have?

Connection is:: 4664 Kbps about 4.7 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB)
Download Speed is:: 569 kB/s
Tested From:: http://testmy.net (main)
Test Time:: 2006/03/28 - 5:41am
Bottom Line:: 83X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 1.8 sec
Tested from a 2992 kB file and took 5.255 seconds to complete
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.8.0.1) Gecko/20060124 Firefox/1.5.0.1
Diagnosis: Looks Great : 2.66 % faster than the average for host (rr.com)
Validation Link:: http://testmy.net/stats/id-B0YKH6JIT


5264 Kbps or 5.14 Mbps (658 kB/s)

Didnt know mine had bumped up a bit.
!