Overclocking Intel E2160 to 3.33GHz Safe?

[amit_talkin]

@nmX.Memnoch,

dude, only few mobos. can lock RAM FSB. mostly mobos. cant do it. and we are talking here abt GENERAL things.not advanced settings.let him do 1st basic settings requires to run his PC 3.33 stable. then he can lock his RAM. dont go advance directly without knowing tht his mobo supports this locking or not.

and there isnt any connection between GPU and CPU overclocking as far i know. and he gets a new generation CPU so obviously have new mobo. which wont have any connection with GPU and CPU overclocking.

and yeah...i have skipped all above boring posts except 1st main post.

[puntoMX]

Older motherboards (and even some newer cheap ones) will also overclock the PCI and AGP/PCIe buses as well. This can cause the GPU to fail as if it were overclocked too much itself. It's particularly bad with NICs and sound cards.

Don’t forget the ATA busses there, that’s the first ones that fails, like not being able to read from the HDD.

Any way, can we sum up this topic?

[Zxian]

dude, only few mobos. can lock RAM FSB. mostly mobos. cant do it. and we are talking here abt GENERAL things.not advanced settings.let him do 1st basic settings requires to run his PC 3.33 stable. then he can lock his RAM. dont go advance directly without knowing tht his mobo supports this locking or not.

If you're talking about "GENERAL" things then "GENERALLY" speaking, overclocking that CPU to 3GHz is not safe!!! How can you go telling someone new that they can go from 1.8GHz to 3GHz without any problems?!?! From what we all can gather in this thread (if you had bothered to read it) is that the OP has little to no experience with overclocking.

Then there's the question of wether or not his CPU can actually hit 3.33GHz. As we all know with overclocking, YMMV.

[nmX.Memnoch]

dude, only few mobos. can lock RAM FSB. mostly mobos. cant do it. and we are talking here abt GENERAL things.not advanced settings.let him do 1st basic settings requires to run his PC 3.33 stable. then he can lock his RAM. dont go advance directly without knowing tht his mobo supports this locking or not.

You don't know what his motherboard supports or doesn't support either so generalizing is something you definitely shouldn't do. Making someone new to overclocking aware of what can, can't, or shouldn't be done, or what can happen, is the best thing you can do. There's a wealth of information on the topic all over the place...some of it good, some of it misleading.

I know that if I was new to overclocking and someone told me "yeah sure, it's safe go right ahead" and then I ended up frying something because of that advice...I'd be some kind of mad at that person. Personally, I get paid to look at a situation and attempt to see 10-20 steps in advance what could or will happen. I tend to do that with everything now. When I see someone only give 10% of the information on overclocking my mind immediately fast forwards to two days later with some dude sitting there...his PC in parts...trying to figure out what happened.

and there isnt any connection between GPU and CPU overclocking as far i know. and he gets a new generation CPU so obviously have new mobo. which wont have any connection with GPU and CPU overclocking.

Ok...let me rephrase. Overclocking your CPU FSB will not, by association, overclock the GPU itself. It could, however, overclock the bus that the GPU sits on. If the bus runs too far out of limits then the GPU will fail to work correctly (or any device on that bus).

and yeah...i have skipped all above boring posts except 1st main post.

I recommend you go back and read them. You'll find that most of your comments have already been covered...in detail.

[iceangel89]

dude, only few mobos. can lock RAM FSB. mostly mobos. cant do it. and we are talking here abt GENERAL things.not advanced settings.let him do 1st basic settings requires to run his PC 3.33 stable. then he can lock his RAM. dont go advance directly without knowing tht his mobo supports this locking or not.

If you're talking about "GENERAL" things then "GENERALLY" speaking, overclocking that CPU to 3GHz is not safe!!! How can you go telling someone new that they can go from 1.8GHz to 3GHz without any problems?!?! From what we all can gather in this thread (if you had bothered to read it) is that the OP has little to no experience with overclocking.

Then there's the question of wether or not his CPU can actually hit 3.33GHz. As we all know with overclocking, YMMV.

ok... so true, erm if i get that, the E2160 w/ intel G33/P35 motherboard with 2GB DDR2 667 RAM will be good enough for say Visual Studio, Dreamweaver, Maya, Photoshop & illustrator all that? Maya from what i learnt, uses CPU for Software/Mental Ray render and GPU for on screen FPS & hardware render. so i can safe abit on GPU 1st - http://www.digitaltutors.com/chit_chat/showthread.php?t=5256

[Zxian]

Yes - everything you've listed will work just fine. You simply don't have any need for that kind of overclocking with your requirements.

Get that setup, and two 250GB or larger SATA hard drives and set them up in RAID0 for your system drive. If you need more proof, compare these:

Single WD 250GB drive

Two WD 320GB drives in RAID0

The speeds speak for themselves.

[iceangel89]

Yes - everything you've listed will work just fine. You simply don't have any need for that kind of overclocking with your requirements.

Get that setup, and two 250GB or larger SATA hard drives and set them up in RAID0 for your system drive. If you need more proof, compare these:

Single WD 250GB drive

Two WD 320GB drives in RAID0

The speeds speak for themselves.

i know RAID is good, but i need 2 HDDs which cost abit more than say i get a Raptor? will spinning faster cause the HDD to spoil faster? by the way, i read i think in Maximum PC, that 3 HDDs RAID is best.

[ripken204]

well the more hard drives in RAID0 the faster is it, but the more risk there is to losing all of your data..

[iceangel89]

thats y i dont like RAID, and to me it feels like wasting HDDs... i rather get a faster HDD like a Westren Digital Raptor i think there is the 15000K RPM 1 now. but vey ex i think

[ripken204]

well there are 2 types of fast. the random access time and the tranfer rate. the raptor has a rly low random access time while raid give a high transfer rate..

[nmX.Memnoch]

well the more hard drives in RAID0 the faster is it, but the more risk there is to losing all of your data..

To an extent. Once it gets to a certain number of drives the speed increases stop and the only benefit is having the one large array vs. a bunch of individual drives. If you're going to put more than 2 drives in a RAID0 array, that's when I recommend just moving to RAID10.

[ripken204]

well the more hard drives in RAID0 the faster is it, but the more risk there is to losing all of your data..

To an extent. Once it gets to a certain number of drives the speed increases stop and the only benefit is having the one large array vs. a bunch of individual drives. If you're going to put more than 2 drives in a RAID0 array, that's when I recommend just moving to RAID10.

well that prolly has to do with the conroller also. buy ya, raid 10 is a good idea, if not, raid 5.

[Zxian]

well that prolly has to do with the conroller also. buy ya, raid 10 is a good idea, if not, raid 5.

Well sure - it all has to do with the RAID controller. The question that comes up is when does the overhead of the controller outweigh the performance increase from the added drive.

@iceangel89 - Those two drives that I showed you might cost a bit more than a single raptor, but the overlal performance is MUCH higher. You'll never see a single Raptor get 300MB/s burst and 120MB/s sustained transfers.

RAID0 should never be where you store critical data. For me - all of my "save data" goes on my file server (which has nothing but redundant storage), while the system drive goes on the RAID array. If one of the drives dies, I've always got a system backup done every other day, so restoring the system is easy. One other thing - people shouldn't confuse RAID0 with "true" RAID. Remember, the R stands for "redundant", which RAID0 has none of.

If you're wondering about the best performance for the least cost - two 250GB or 320GB drives in RAID0 will outdo a single Raptor any day.

[nmX.Memnoch]

buy ya, raid 10 is a good idea, if not, raid 5.

It all depends on the application. If you're looking for speed you definitely don't want to go RAID5 unless you have a really good RAID controller. And even then you should weigh your storage size and speed requirements to decide which RAID level to use. IMO, RAID5 should never be used for an OS drive.

None of the integrated solutions (Intel, NVIDIA, ATI, etc, etc) are considered really good RAID controllers. Using them for RAID0, RAID1 or RAID10 is fine because no calculations have to be performed to write or read the data. Anything higher than those levels though, and you need a real hardware RAID controller with it's own dedicated processor, cache, and optionally a battery backup for the cache.

See this thread for more detailed information.