What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
70 Comments
- Ocelot13, on 12/30/2008, -2/+60but will it blend?
but will it play crysis?
this is madness!
i can haz cheezburger?
***** mr baby spam!
im tired of these ***** _____ on this ***** ______!
all your base are belong to us!
LEEEEEEEEROY JENKINS!
***** or gtfo!
leave britney alone!
dont tase me bro!
the cake is a lie.
its OVER 9000!
nintendo sixty foooooooooouuuuuurrrrrrr!
never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and desert you.
so i hope you enjoyed this list, because i had fun but my mom got scared and said youre moving with your auntie and uncle in bel-air! i whistled for a cab and when it came near the license plate said fresh and there were dice on the mirror. if anything i could say this cab was rare but naw forget yo holmes to bel-air! i pulled up to the house round seven or eight and yelled to the cabbie yo holmes smell ya later. i looked at my kingdom and i was finally there, to sit on my throne as the prince of bel air. - dtfinch, on 12/29/2008, -1/+47I'm a little concerned when I hear about mixing hyperthreading and multiple cores. If you have two threads running, is Windows well designed enough to make sure they run on separate cores for best performance? Or will it be stupid and treat each hyperthreaded core as two independent cores, and occasionally run both threads on the same core for a near 50% performance loss?
I couldn't find anything to confirm or deny this. - AmyVernon, on 12/29/2008, -4/+43Wow. Somebody needs a hug.
- dtfinch, on 12/29/2008, -0/+33To answer my own silly question, Windows 2000 has this problem, but it's fixed in XP and later.
http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2004/09/ ... - doublefelix, on 12/30/2008, -1/+30I like the part where you killed the conversation.
- BeShirtHappy, on 12/29/2008, -3/+30Not sure why it's showing the back of the box in the thumbnail... not the one I selected. It doesn't change the fact that it's a nice review! :)
- inactive, on 12/29/2008, -14/+37Anyone who even makes a joke about Crysis is a ***** ***** and is pre-approved fail. That goes for the customary lolcat joke, followed up by an obscure 2-year old meme.
- lukas88, on 12/30/2008, -1/+20overclocking is a fun thing to do and every self respecting nerd should try at at least once, but most of the time and for most applications, it is somewhat futile. I bought a highly overclockable E4300 a few years ago, a 1.8 ghz dual core processor with multiplyer of 11 so that even small changes in FSB would result a dramatically higher clock speed. I got it up to 2.4 ghz without even needing to change out the stock fan. It was great and a learning experience, and all the benchmarks came out much higher. But in real world application use, the most noticeable difference was the fan running slightly louder.
If you are set on playing modern FPS games on their highest settings it may be worthwhile, but even then it is usually a graphics card that will bottleneck the performance, not the CPU.
My first computer was a 386, so over the years I have come to appreciate processing power, but in the last few it is noteworthy that hardware capabilities have far outpaced most software applications (not talking games) by a longshot. Even the 1.6 ghz single core atom processor in my notebook can handle any application I use without breaking a sweat. - arkanebeats, on 12/30/2008, -0/+15Some of you are completely missing the point and instead of reading the article, decided that this is the place where you would decry overclocking and all of it's 'ridiculousness'. Had you read the article, you would have seen that the overclocked Core i7 920 (~$300) matched or outpaced the Core i7 EE 965 (~$1000). Call me crazy, but tripling the value of my investment works for me.
- lukedamonkey, on 12/30/2008, -1/+16@Idmyers
You're like barry bonds,
you hit home runs, but are an ***** to your peers, and I think you're on steroids. - Ricochetbiscuit, on 12/29/2008, -2/+16Hyperthreading simply intelligently balances multiple (two) threads in flight per core. It's actually a more efficient use of processing resources and as long as the application is multi-threaded, you'll see a performance increase.
- Ricochetbiscuit, on 12/30/2008, -1/+15Umm.. and someone needs to lighten the hell up. Sheesh... Watch the movie Anger Management, ok? It'll be good for ya.
- Spanq, on 12/30/2008, -2/+15But can it run GTA4?
- dtfinch, on 12/29/2008, -1/+14I'm talking about the risk of two threads running on the same core while the other cores are left idle because the scheduler treats 4 hyperthreaded cores as 8 cores with no special considerations.
- Azathothh, on 12/30/2008, -0/+12***** THE RIAA
I for one welcome our new ____ overlords
OGC
Pedobear ascii
It's a trap ascii
Homer ascii
rick roll
in the butt
these comments suck
pics or didn't happen
fake - CATSCEO2, on 12/30/2008, -2/+14All your base are belong to us.
- slezzzter, on 12/30/2008, -0/+11***** you guys, my friend died quoting digg memes.
- plr4ever, on 12/30/2008, -0/+10Pentium Pro FTW!
- paidhima, on 12/30/2008, -0/+8A quick glance at your comment history tells me you're an internet tough guy, which is cool. But before you ***** on everyone else for making the most of the hardware they have, allow me to list a few good reasons to overclock:
1. The challenge. Simple, really.
2. Performance - gaming. Your example of 107 vs 120 FPS not making a difference in the real world is flawed. More important are numbers such as 48 FPS vs 60 FPS in Crysis. Whether or not you like the game, that's a real-world number, and a 25% increase in frame rate in that range is noticeable and desirable. Additionally, with the major advancements made in physics, post-processing and AI coding within games, a faster CPU is very beneficial. Considering overclocking is an essentially free upgrade, why not?
3. Performance - non-gaming. This may be somewhat subjective, but I noticed a difference when I clocked my Q6600 from 2.66 GHz to 3.2. When dealing with any kind of video production, it makes an even more noticeable difference. You mention that those doing serious CGI wouldn't bother with this, but you fail to consider that there is a lot more being done these days with video than professional work. HD video editing is becoming more popular as HD video cameras come down in price. Encoding/transcoding HD video is ridiculously CPU intense, and it can make all the difference in the world with a faster CPU. Transcoded video for media center machines (or streaming to set-top boxes) is gaining ground with products like TVersity, and transcoding streaming video is also extremely CPU-limited.
Either way you look at it, getting more bang for your buck is anything but silly. You can say what you want, but it makes a difference, and OC'ing modern procs is even more attractive than it used to be, considering the headway you have with even stock cooling/voltages. As for excess heat/power and reduced lifespan, I don't see it as a problem. Current third party heat sinks, even fairly simple air-cooled affairs, are getting more and more efficient at keeping CPU temps down to easily tolerable levels. Increased power consumption is something to consider, but I haven't an issue with my OC'd 6600. Finally, lifespan. It's true that OC'ing a CPU reduces its lifespan, but I've yet to encounter a CPU that has died on me (other than flat-out defects). It's just not an issue. - vickers500, on 12/30/2008, -1/+9YO DAWG, WE PUT SOME MEMES ON YO MEMES SO YOU CAN MEME WHILE YOU MEME
CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL - vickers500, on 12/30/2008, -0/+8*hugs* there there buddy
- TSK05, on 12/30/2008, -0/+7Was thinking about getting the i7 920 but it would run me $700 with the new motherboard, new RAM and new CPU (+ a new heatsink/fan). Decided to spend $500 on a Q9300 and overclock that to 3.6 GHz - will have to do.
- LoneWolf01, on 12/30/2008, -0/+7Do a barrel roll
- randypanda, on 12/30/2008, -0/+7Looking at processors in a box wants to make me build another computer.
- fmaxwell, on 12/30/2008, -1/+8How does it double the value of the CPU to cause it to generate more heat, use more electricity, reduce its lifespan, and make it suspect every time your system crashes?
How does it double the value of the CPU if you are increasing the speed beyond what you need or are even likely to notice in day-to-day operation?
After you successfully overclock it, will people be willing to pay you twice as much as when you bought it -- or would they, instead, buy an Intel part tested and guaranteed to run at that speed?
Suppose you could not overclock the CPU at all: Would you be willing to pay twice as much for one that ran at the speed you expected to achieve by overclocking? If not, the value of the CPU is not doubled by overclocking, is it?
Please, tell me, to whom is the value doubled and why?
You should work at Best Buy selling Monster Cable. - inactive, on 12/30/2008, -0/+5How dare you question Ubuntu. Ubuntu make the processor run fast and not the other way around!!
- je12u, on 12/30/2008, -0/+4Forget GTA4, let's see it open Adobe Reader
- Metalcard, on 12/30/2008, -0/+4HD Capture and Conversion are the only reasons all this CPU power appeals to me, it would cut down my conversion times substantially. So for me more CPU power is always great, for others like your self, not so much.
- ethana2, on 12/30/2008, -0/+4Looks like 3.5 GHz is the sweet point.
Can't wait to see what happens on 32nm :) - inactive, on 12/30/2008, -0/+4ITS THAT WOO WOOOOO!!!!
- martinaoe2, on 12/30/2008, -0/+4yes!
- Gareth321, on 12/30/2008, -0/+4Wasn't silly at all. I learned something interesting today =)
- shifty2, on 12/30/2008, -0/+4you're obviously not old enough to have owned and overclocked a Celeron 300A
- inactive, on 12/30/2008, -3/+6"Anyone who even makes a joke about Crysis is a ***** ***** and is pre-approved fail. That goes for the customary lolcat joke, followed up by an obscure 2-year old meme."
Your grammatically incorrect use of the word fail makes you a ***** ***** then. Also, the word "meme" has become a meme...Don't complain about internet lingo while using it at the same time...***** :) - paidhima, on 12/30/2008, -0/+3It depends on what you're doing. For a gamer, CPU speed is still essential. Post-processing, AI and physics - all of which are becoming more and more advanced, benefit greatly from increased CPU performance and efficiency. For non-gamers, anything dealing heavily with video will benefit as well, particularly considering the growing prevalence of HD video.
- Ricochetbiscuit, on 12/29/2008, -2/+5I'm sure there is an arbitration algorithm in place as well as an intelligent scheduler but I'm not familiar with it all. Either way, the application performance results with it turned on show it works quite well.
- fmaxwell, on 12/30/2008, -8/+11Outside of telling your friends how 133T you are, I'm really not seeing the point to this level of silliness anymore. It's not like the old days where people argued about whether 15 frames per second was fast enough or whether they should drop back to 320x240 resolution. Being able to render 120 frames per second rather than 107 really doesn't make any real-world difference (yeah, except for you "special" people who claim to see flicker at 200hz refresh rates and hear sounds that dogs can't hear -- we all totally believe you and are so jealous. Feel better about yourself?).
If you're doing serious CGI for the movie studios, you won't waste your time (and money) like this. If you're playing games, you've got more than enough CPU horsepower at the stock clock speed. If you're ripping DVDs to save $13 a disc, your time is not worth that much anyway, so just chill out.
Let the flames begin... - MrViklund, on 12/30/2008, -0/+3Buried because thumbnail...
- spokenkaraoke, on 12/30/2008, -1/+4i'm more flash games, but this would be good for movie editing.
- Readux, on 12/30/2008, -2/+5taze
- hiro, on 12/31/2008, -0/+2I was wondering what the Republic of Ireland had to do with it?
- inactive, on 12/31/2008, -0/+2umm, read it again, he said he had seen an increase when it came to games, I don't see how his video card was holding back the rest of his PC usage before a cpu upgrade.
- TSK05, on 12/31/2008, -0/+2You're right nolimits, I misread.
@ mustard911 - You're saying you upgraded from a P4 to an i7 and saw little difference? I upgraded from a P4 (2.6 GHz, I think) to an AMD 3500+ three years ago and saw a HUGE difference. You upgraded to a far superior CPU and saw very little difference? That is very strange. - paidhima, on 12/30/2008, -0/+2Ok, I'll bite.
First, I couldn't care less what my friends think of it. I don't OC to show my friends. I OC because I enjoy the challenge of pushing my system. It's for my own enjoyment, not bragging rights. The only time it's even discussed is in regards to the technology itself - in other words, what can be accomplished with what hardware. As for compromised parts, you're absolutely right - if you don't do it correctly. If done carefully, by someone knowledgeable there is little risk of doing real damage to a part.
Second, as to your comment on essentially free. I am a proponent of bang-for-your-buck performance. If the cost of a lower-tier CPU plus the cost of any required components to OC that CPU falls outside what I consider to be reasonable cost, then I don't do it. Additionally, I'm also a big believer in small steps with existing solutions. Newer Core 2 CPUs (particularly the 45nm Penryn-based parts), and the new i7s, are highly overclockable using stock voltage and cooling. A modest OC from 2.66 to 3.2Ghz may be entirely possible without raising your voltage .01V or investing in more expensive cooling while maintaining rock-solid stability and thermal conditions well within acceptable ranges.
Concerning system stability, I'm not sure what experience you have with OC'ing, but one of the characteristics of a successful clock is stability itself. If the system is not stable, then the OC is not successful. What's so hard to understand about that? I don't worry about system crashes on my OC'd systems because I know they are stable. Before deeming any system of mine ready for prime time, I (and any OCer worth a damn) will put it through exhaustive stability testing.
I use always-on systems as well at home. I currently maintain three servers (domain controller running 2008, file/exchange server running 2003, and a web server that's mainly for screwing around with) and four desktops (one always-on main, a secondary almost-always-on media/gaming machine set up on a big LCD, a screw-around-with test machine running a few different OSes and a secure machine I use for sensitive projects). Two desktops are OC'd right now, one of them fairly modestly. I am fully aware of the power needs of systems varying widely in functionality and performance. I did not, and do not, disagree that OCing uses more power, and as such requires more. Perhaps I don't go as nuts as everyone else, but considering my average power usage, I haven't seen an incredible difference - not nearly enough to make me rethink OCing for the power usage alone.
As for how statistically significant a number I'm working with, I'll give you an idea. Over the years I've built well over 100 machines, for myself, friends, clients, etc from small micro-atx set-tops to big, multi-TB file servers. I have OC'd, by request of the user, maybe three dozen systems. Depending on the hardware, I generally go for a 10-30% OC without exotic cooling, though I've gone higher with newer Core 2s and some of the bread-and-butter OC CPUs like the old Celeron 300A and newer lower-tier Core 2 Duos. In all my experience with hardware, I've not dealt with a single dead CPU that wasn't flat out DOA.
I'm not explaining my home configuration and experience to brag about anything. I just want you to understand that I'm not some kid burning out the CPUs my parents bought for me.
The bottom line on OCing is that your arguments are generally only valid for those that don't know how to OC. And, frankly, OCing is not for everyone. If you're not prepared to deal with stability testing and research - and the very real possibility of frying the crap out of a CPU when you're first starting out, then the technique is not for you. You're ***** on a technique that was written about on an enthusiast website, by an enthusiast, for enthusiasts. If you're not an enthusiast and feel that you would rather buy a more expensive CPU than screw around trying to push a cheaper one past it's listed numbers, then OCing is not for you. That's cool.
Finally, two more things: 1) I am not that type of person. I am fully aware of the damage ESD can do, and am careful to take appropriate measures. And, 2) It may not happen, and doesn't always. The 965 is the EE edition of the CPU, and there is more to that CPU than just the clock speed. Intel purposely keeps their EE CPUs highly priced. Just look at Intel's QX EE series, still topping out at nearly $1500. If I can get $1000 worth of performance out of a $300 part, I don't see why you feel it necessary to take a big steaming (and somewhat outdated) dump on the idea. - fmaxwell, on 12/31/2008, -0/+2You have a bit more time on your hands than I do this evening, so I'll be brief.
I've got my own domain with a server (a commercial server) running Windows Server 2003 Enterprise. It's on 24/7 for mail, FTP, web, DNS, RAID shared drive, and some other purposes I won't go into here.
I have a homebuilt system that's running 24/7. It's slightly underclocked and damned close to silent. I've got another running at the rated speed. Works fine. Kind of outdated, but you just don't need quad Xeons to play Unreal Tournament, rip DVDs, or rip CDs. I've got a few others that I use for experimentation and a couple of laptops.
As to professional experience, I've been in charge of a program with over 3,000 deployed PCs acting in an industrial control setting. Thermal problems were a big issue and every successful step taken to reduce CPU heat resulted in fewer support calls and failures.
Back when we were struggling to get flight simulators to have frame rates faster than slide shows, I overclocked a lot of systems. Your Celeron 300A was the best example of a drastically overclockable chip, with 450mhz being easy. Lest you think that dates me, my first system with a disk drive was a CPM/80 system. I had been wire-wrapping systems before IBM even introduced the PC.
If it makes you happy to overclock, go for it. I'm not taking a big steaming dump on the idea -- I'm saying that I'm not seeing the point now. I'd much rather build a silent system than one that was 15% faster. An i7 920 with no overclocking absolutely screams. Add a high-end graphics card and you've got an incredible system for a modest investment. But it's your CPU, your time, your money, and you can do whatever floats your boat. A whole bunch of people will think it's really cool if you overclock it. Some will think it's the worst thing ever. And some like me just won't see the appeal. But that doesn't matter; it's your system. - paidhima, on 12/30/2008, -0/+2Of course, the graphics card is essential to any high-performance gaming rig. But don't underestimate the importance of the CPU. As was said, as physics and AI get more advanced, they will require a lot more horsepower.
- LucifersDad, on 01/02/2009, -0/+2Does your mum play Crysis ?
What about your dad ?
If a bear ***** in the woods does it smell like Crysis ?
Knock who's there ? Its not Crysis.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth and then he created Crysis.
Adam and eve were kicked out of Eden for playing Crysis. - EddieStarr, on 12/31/2008, -0/+2BURN That Chip :)
- inactive, on 12/31/2008, -0/+2I've got a ATI HD3870 512mb. I upgraded only the motherboard (Gigabyte-Extreme), CPU (i7 920), Memory 6gb of ddr3-1333 which I've got oc'ed. I also had to upgrade the PSU because when I had the CPU overclocked to Extreme CPU levels it demanded too much power and blow the PSU up. 600watts cheapish to now a 750watts, semi cheapie. It's important to have double head CPU psu connector for overclocking! Maybe it's got dual regulator support on that cable!
I've got Vista 64 installed and mainly use OpenSuse in IA65/server mode.
I wanted to upgrade to get the IA64 opcodes and Vanderpool tech. If I didn't need those technologies I wouldn't have considered the upgrade worth it.
Maybe new kernels on Vista and Linux will improve. - paidhima, on 12/31/2008, -0/+2I definitely see where you're coming from now in terms of functionality and heat, and it makes sense now. I would absolutely agree that in that kind of professional setting heat would be a major contributor to instability. I'm not in charge of quite that many deployed machines, but I would agree wholeheartedly with your assessment.
While the 300A dates you a bit, no worries. I don't go as far back as you do (old timer!). My first real computer was an Apple IIc, which is where I learned things like assembly language and basic programming. It may sound ultra-nerdy, but I bet you have some interesting stories from the pre-PC era ;)
As to you not seeing the point, I think we're looking at it from a different perspective. You're correct in that there's less reason (in terms of real performance) to overclock now than before. The 920 is an amazing CPU. The performance is just astounding, particularly considering the price. I'm not sure I will even bother OC'ing the 920 at all, depending on what kind of performance I get in games (I'll be upgrading to the 920 sometime in the next month or two).
I also agree that I would rather build a quiet system than an ultra-OC'd one. One of my requirements for a proper overclock is minimal noise. I realized a long time ago that OC'ing a system is great, but if you've got to run Delta black labels at 100% to keep it stable, it's just not worth the noise. I don't want a Cessna; I want a computer. For my own use, I don't OC systems to the point I need high CFR fans - as you said, the speed is not worth the noise. This is one of the great things about the Core 2 and now i7 (and should continue once they move to 32nm): 45nm CPUs run incredibly well in a low-noise system while maintaining the ability to overclock.
My main point on the issue is that an experienced overclocker will be able to take that CPU and get a 30%+ boost on it easily, with little investment of real time or money, and save themselves hundreds of dollars in the process. Intel even built in the ability with the Turbo feature and unlocked EE editions. Do they need to? Of course not. Modern CPUs are plenty fast enough to be used stock. But part of the fun of tinkering is being able to do that kind of stuff. Some like to tinker more than others. For some, it's a hassle. For others, it's a hobby. -
Show 51 - 72 of 72 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is