None at all. The computer's internal clock simply governs how frequently it processes data. By increasing your computer's clock, you are simply telling it to do its calculations at a higher frequency. Your video frame rates will be unaffected as they are hardcoded in the video data. The video data will simply be processed quicker.A very very rough analogy would be comparing it to typing. Your typing speed is measured in units per time (words per minute). Processing is measured also in units per time (cycles per second). If you increase your WPM you will simply get your document written faster but the finished document will be the same no matter how fast it was written. Likewise, if you increase your processor's Hz, your video will get processed faster but the finished product will not change.
Find me a laptop with a 256MB 8600GT that is under 5kgs and has a 4+ hour battery life for less then the price of a Macbook Pro and I'll gladly buy it. Until then, sod off with your ugly heavy windows laptops that die after 30mins of real use.
Has anyone tried this and taken temps? Sounds interesting to those that need it, but bundling it up into a simple tool is a recipe for disaster.I'm generalizing here, so bear with me. What is the target group for the Mac? People that don't really know much about computers and dont want to mess with Windows "features" (there are exceptions). I fear that is going to become the nifty cool fad to OC your Mac (especially if they make it compatible with MB/MBP), and people are not going to realize the potential risk of a big jump in clockspeed. Quite a few people could loose a lot of money on this.I've seen this quite a few times when I believe it was HP (or one of the other big retailers) that was shipping a small OC utility on there media center desktops. You wouldn't believe the numbers of people that came in and said "I ran this program to make my computer go fast and now it wont work and smells funny." Rarely have I seen JimBob get curious and enter the BIOS and screw with the numbers and fried the CPU/mobo.
I have worked on several billboard sized ads, as well as 6m x 3m panels for exhibitions. So quite likely ;)My point was simply that theres more to having a fast computer than games. Working with very large PSDs can be quite processor intensiveAnd with regards to my comment about many studios being Mac only - well it's true, but it was purely a response to smrekars post. And FCP may be less intuitive that Premier, but its still pretty much the industry standard for post production video editing. Logic is less intuitive than Reason, buts its the Pro choice for DAW work. But I dont really know why the big studios ive worked at prefer Mac. There are many possible reasons - font rendering and color repro being two. Also since you can boot from Bootcamp and run any windows app, it seems to make far more sense to go the mac route and be able to run ALL applications.
Pitlord:Just FYI since I've seen you say this a couple of times, the amount of RAM an OS supports is determined by whether it's a 32-bit or 64-bit OS. Leopard is either a 64-bit or 32-bit OS, depending on whether you have a 64-bit or 32-bit CPU. They just make it one little package so that it's easier for the average consumer to know what to buy. If you are running Leopard on a 32-bit CPU, such as my first-generation MacBook, then you are running a 32-bit OS that can only utilize a maximum of 2^32 bytes of RAM, or approximately 4 GB (in theory; in practice, for Windows, it's roughly 3.5 GB). However, if you are running Leopard with a 64-bit CPU, such as any new Mac today, then you are running a 64-bit version of Leopard that can use up to 2^64 bytes of RAM, which comes to, well, many more thousands of gigabytes than anybody is ever going to use any time in the near future. With a 64-bit OS, you're basically restricted by how much RAM your hardware supports, not the OS. Unless, of course, you're talking about Windows, which places artificial restrictions on the amount of RAM it supports on its 64-bit versions (Home Basic being 8 GB, Home Premium 32 GB, Ultimate 128+ GB, etc). Currently, for the Mac Pro, the maximum RAM supported is 32 GB only because that's the most RAM the hardware physically supports.In short, being able to use more than 3 GB of RAM has absolutely nothing to do with it being OS X. It has to do with architecture; any 64-bit OS with compatible hardware will be capable of utilizing more than 3 GB of RAM, including 64-bit versions of Windows XP and Vista. Use a 32-bit OS, however, be it Vista, XP, *nix, OS X, whatever, and you will be restricted to, in theory, 4 GB of RAM or less.
Spoken like somebody that truly has no idea what they're talking about. Was the last Mac you used built in 2001? Or are you just making up your implied experience?
What an ugly lump of plastic, the key word here being lump. It's fat as hell and the battery is poking an inch or more out the back. Yuck, no thanks, I'm a value minded consumer but I'd not shame myself with something that hideous.I also couldn't find any weight or battery life info, but I doubt it'd last more than 4 hours, every compact with an 8600GT never made past 2 hours when fully tested. The closest to the Macbook Pros are the Dell XPS M1530s, but a mate at work had one and I didn't like the plasticy feel of them, there's also a lot more to a Mac than the specs. OS-X is fantastic on a portable and it has multi touch - never felt the need to cart around a wireless mouse with it, along with lots of other nice touches you won't find in those cost-cutting wintel machines.
ex3pooJul 1, 2008
These comments suck.
megagramJul 1, 2008
None at all. The computer's internal clock simply governs how frequently it processes data. By increasing your computer's clock, you are simply telling it to do its calculations at a higher frequency. Your video frame rates will be unaffected as they are hardcoded in the video data. The video data will simply be processed quicker.A very very rough analogy would be comparing it to typing. Your typing speed is measured in units per time (words per minute). Processing is measured also in units per time (cycles per second). If you increase your WPM you will simply get your document written faster but the finished document will be the same no matter how fast it was written. Likewise, if you increase your processor's Hz, your video will get processed faster but the finished product will not change.
Closed AccountJul 1, 2008
I think he means macbooks/imacs
flux1337Jul 1, 2008
How many do you own then?
dracusisJul 1, 2008
Find me a laptop with a 256MB 8600GT that is under 5kgs and has a 4+ hour battery life for less then the price of a Macbook Pro and I'll gladly buy it. Until then, sod off with your ugly heavy windows laptops that die after 30mins of real use.
dudeman01Jul 1, 2008
Has anyone tried this and taken temps? Sounds interesting to those that need it, but bundling it up into a simple tool is a recipe for disaster.I'm generalizing here, so bear with me. What is the target group for the Mac? People that don't really know much about computers and dont want to mess with Windows "features" (there are exceptions). I fear that is going to become the nifty cool fad to OC your Mac (especially if they make it compatible with MB/MBP), and people are not going to realize the potential risk of a big jump in clockspeed. Quite a few people could loose a lot of money on this.I've seen this quite a few times when I believe it was HP (or one of the other big retailers) that was shipping a small OC utility on there media center desktops. You wouldn't believe the numbers of people that came in and said "I ran this program to make my computer go fast and now it wont work and smells funny." Rarely have I seen JimBob get curious and enter the BIOS and screw with the numbers and fried the CPU/mobo.
th3kyleJul 1, 2008
Oh, I guess you see what I did there, eh?
Closed AccountJul 2, 2008
I have worked on several billboard sized ads, as well as 6m x 3m panels for exhibitions. So quite likely ;)My point was simply that theres more to having a fast computer than games. Working with very large PSDs can be quite processor intensiveAnd with regards to my comment about many studios being Mac only - well it's true, but it was purely a response to smrekars post. And FCP may be less intuitive that Premier, but its still pretty much the industry standard for post production video editing. Logic is less intuitive than Reason, buts its the Pro choice for DAW work. But I dont really know why the big studios ive worked at prefer Mac. There are many possible reasons - font rendering and color repro being two. Also since you can boot from Bootcamp and run any windows app, it seems to make far more sense to go the mac route and be able to run ALL applications.
monkeyfartsJul 2, 2008
Pitlord:Just FYI since I've seen you say this a couple of times, the amount of RAM an OS supports is determined by whether it's a 32-bit or 64-bit OS. Leopard is either a 64-bit or 32-bit OS, depending on whether you have a 64-bit or 32-bit CPU. They just make it one little package so that it's easier for the average consumer to know what to buy. If you are running Leopard on a 32-bit CPU, such as my first-generation MacBook, then you are running a 32-bit OS that can only utilize a maximum of 2^32 bytes of RAM, or approximately 4 GB (in theory; in practice, for Windows, it's roughly 3.5 GB). However, if you are running Leopard with a 64-bit CPU, such as any new Mac today, then you are running a 64-bit version of Leopard that can use up to 2^64 bytes of RAM, which comes to, well, many more thousands of gigabytes than anybody is ever going to use any time in the near future. With a 64-bit OS, you're basically restricted by how much RAM your hardware supports, not the OS. Unless, of course, you're talking about Windows, which places artificial restrictions on the amount of RAM it supports on its 64-bit versions (Home Basic being 8 GB, Home Premium 32 GB, Ultimate 128+ GB, etc). Currently, for the Mac Pro, the maximum RAM supported is 32 GB only because that's the most RAM the hardware physically supports.In short, being able to use more than 3 GB of RAM has absolutely nothing to do with it being OS X. It has to do with architecture; any 64-bit OS with compatible hardware will be capable of utilizing more than 3 GB of RAM, including 64-bit versions of Windows XP and Vista. Use a 32-bit OS, however, be it Vista, XP, *nix, OS X, whatever, and you will be restricted to, in theory, 4 GB of RAM or less.
monkeyfartsJul 2, 2008
Spoken like somebody that truly has no idea what they're talking about. Was the last Mac you used built in 2001? Or are you just making up your implied experience?
dracusisJul 2, 2008
What an ugly lump of plastic, the key word here being lump. It's fat as hell and the battery is poking an inch or more out the back. Yuck, no thanks, I'm a value minded consumer but I'd not shame myself with something that hideous.I also couldn't find any weight or battery life info, but I doubt it'd last more than 4 hours, every compact with an 8600GT never made past 2 hours when fully tested. The closest to the Macbook Pros are the Dell XPS M1530s, but a mate at work had one and I didn't like the plasticy feel of them, there's also a lot more to a Mac than the specs. OS-X is fantastic on a portable and it has multi touch - never felt the need to cart around a wireless mouse with it, along with lots of other nice touches you won't find in those cost-cutting wintel machines.
fredfredricksonOct 1, 2008
Good idea, let's put potentially hardware damaging tools in the hands of inexperienced / casual computer users (ie Mac users). Brilliant.
macintoshreaderDec 31, 2008
I see what you did there.