Overclocking my desktop, Is is possible and how?

[adrian2055]

I purchased the dual core processor for my desktop a few weeks ago (Thanks for all the help guys ) now I wanted to see if I could overclock it (I know, I know, A tech junkie is never satisfied). I was also wondering if I could overclock the memory and the video card as well. Can someone tell me if it's even possible to overclock my system?

First off, here's my current PC specs:

Dell Inspiron i537-3492 Desktop PC

Intel Pentium Dual-Core Processor 2.7GHz (2MB cache, 800MHz FSB)

Microsoft Windows Vista Business Edition 64-bit With Service Pack 2

2GB DDR2 Dual-Channel SDRAM at 800 MHz

BFG Tech NVIDIA GeForce 8400 GS 512 MB Graphics Card

Western Digital Caviar Blue WD3200AAKS 320GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA Internal Hard Drive

HL-DT-ST 16x DVD+-RW Drive

Dell 19" IN1910N Widescreen Digital Flat Panel

Conexant D850 PCI V.92 Modem

Realtek PCIe Integrated 10/100 Ethernet

Realtek High Definition Audio

Second, Here are the options that I had in my advanced bios settings:

I just typed what was in my bios options instead on making a spreadsheet (Excel and I are not on good terms at this moment).

Limit CPUID Value Disabled Disabled for Windows XP.

Execute Disable Bit Enabled When disabled, force the XD feature flag to always return 0.

Core Multi Processing Enabled When disabled, disable one execution core of each CPU die.

Is it possible to overclock my system?

[engmod]

H Adrian,

With overclocking, you never know until you try.

I found many sources on google.

http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&num=20...bb74ba78ee8f406

Derek

Edited November 8, 2009 by engmod

[adrian2055]

Thanks for the link Derek. It's greatly appreciated. I see google works better for you than it does for me. I didn't fond wha I needed when I searched earlier.

[CoffeeFiend]

I wanted to see if I could overclock it

If it's like all the Dell motherboards I've seen before, you have very little overclocking options, if any.

I was also wondering if I could overclock the memory and the video card as well

That video card is so underpowered to begin with it would hardly make any difference. It'll take a lot more than a little overclocking it to play newer games with nice settings.

The 8600 was the mid-range card in that series (OK for games). Then the 8500 was a cheap version. The 8400... Not for gaming. GS also pretty much stands for "budget" (vs the GT series or such). So it's like a budget version, of a cut-down version, of a low-end version of an old video card basically... There are some cheap video cards (around $50) that totally slaughter this one.

[adrian2055]

WOW! I didn't realize this video card was so underpowered. Oh well. I won't push the issue. Thanks for telling me. Oh, and you're right about the dell motherboard. I don't have any options to overclock it.

[Zxian]

You'll see a significant performance increase with games if you make two upgrades. First off is the video card, as CoffeeFiend mentioned. You should be able to find a current mid-range card for about $60 which will deal relatively well with modern games (no settings maxed, but you'll be able to play).

The second is your RAM. I would highly recommend upgrading it to 4GB total. You're already running Vista 64-bit, so you won't have any issues of memory "clipping" that occurs in 32-bit operating systems. I would recommend completely replacing the RAM that you have with a good 2x2GB kit. Mixing different RAM is possible, but can sometimes lead to instability issues and is generally not worth the hassle (you end up spending more money than you would have if you just replaced it all). Sadly, with the introduction of DDR3, the prices of DDR2 have increased dramatically, but you'd still be wise to put down the money now. It will greatly extend the lifetime of the system as a whole.

[adrian2055]

You'll see a significant performance increase with games if you make two upgrades. First off is the video card, as CoffeeFiend mentioned. You should be able to find a current mid-range card for about $60 which will deal relatively well with modern games (no settings maxed, but you'll be able to play).

The second is your RAM. I would highly recommend upgrading it to 4GB total. You're already running Vista 64-bit, so you won't have any issues of memory "clipping" that occurs in 32-bit operating systems. I would recommend completely replacing the RAM that you have with a good 2x2GB kit. Mixing different RAM is possible, but can sometimes lead to instability issues and is generally not worth the hassle (you end up spending more money than you would have if you just replaced it all). Sadly, with the introduction of DDR3, the prices of DDR2 have increased dramatically, but you'd still be wise to put down the money now. It will greatly extend the lifetime of the system as a whole.

I've noticed that. The price of memory for my pc doubled over the summer. I plan on going up to 4GB soon. I'll have to do a 2x2GB kit since I only have 2 slots in my pc and both of them have a 1GB stick right now.

What's a good nvidia card to buy?

[CoffeeFiend]

What's a good nvidia card to buy?

None! (Sorry, couldn't resist)

It depends on your budget, and what you expect out of a new card.

Around $60 you can either get a 9500GT or a ATI 4670 that's ~50% faster (see here for example). In fact, even the cheaper 4650 is faster (see here)

Personally, I don't let nvidia stuff get near my boxes

[Zenskas]

What's a good nvidia card to buy?

None! (Sorry, couldn't resist)

It depends on your budget, and what you expect out of a new card.

Around $60 you can either get a 9500GT or a ATI 4670 that's ~50% faster (see here for example). In fact, even the cheaper 4650 is faster (see here)

Personally, I don't let nvidia stuff get near my boxes

Or you could get a 9600GT for $80 which is x amount faster. Or a HD4770 which is x faster than that. Or a GTS 250 which is even x amount faster!

The 9500GT ain't that good, but a 9600GT would definatly beat any 4670 easily. And of course the 4650 is faster! My x1950pro is faster than a 9500GT! Even though lots of x1950's tend to screw up (compared to their NVIDIA 76/8/9xx competition) I guess I was lucky! Anyway, you can't argue with the market share, so some NVIDIA cards must be good. As for NVIDIA cards, like I said, a 9600GT would be a great replacement and I find myself recommending 96/800 series cards to many friends of mine who get them running nice and hot while gaming without any issues with heat or drivers etc. I got three friends I know with 9800GT's, two with 9600GT's and one guy with a 9500GT. Then I have a heavily OC'ed 9600GT and also an x1950pro in my other PC. The x1950pro would be really cheap second hand like mine, but like I said, they tend to have heat issues with the VRMs. Thankfully mine has the decent stock cooler which covers the VRMs.

[CoffeeFiend]

Or you could get a 9600GT for $80 which is x amount faster. Or a HD4770 which is x faster than that. Or a GTS 250 which is even x amount faster!

Yes, funny how when you raise the price point, you can get faster cards eh? I was going for Zxian's suggested (and reasonable) price point, at which ATI has better offerings.

but a 9600GT would definatly beat any 4670 easily

A $80 nvidia card beats a $60 ati card, just like it's no challenge finding $80 ATI cards that are faster than a $60 nvidia card (actually, it's easy, even at $60). No that he likely needs that kind of performance in the first place.

Even though lots of x1950's tend to screw up (compared to their NVIDIA 76/8/9xx competition)

You mean their competition with record breaking G84/G86 failure rates?

Anyway, you can't argue with the market share

Right. So Intel (GMA) must be absolutely fantastic cards as it has the vast majority of it and are still growing. Much like McD's must serve great food because loads of people eat there. You just can't argue with that indeed. BTW, nvidia is losing to Intel and AMD lately, so that must mean bad things as well!

I watched a wicked demo of a 5870 yesterday (triple monitors @ 1920x1200). Absolutely amazing. Oh, and its little brother the 5850 pwns a GTX285 too, despite being significantly cheaper (and also using less power)

[Zenskas]

Yes, funny how when you raise the price point, you can get faster cards eh? I was going for Zxian's suggested (and reasonable) price point, at which ATI has better offerings.

Well actually there are plenty of HD4670's on Newegg for over $80 but hey I was just recommending another card on NVIDIA's side as that is what he did ask for...

A $80 nvidia card beats a $60 ati card, just like it's no challenge finding $80 ATI cards that are faster than a $60 nvidia card (actually, it's easy, even at $60). No that he likely needs that kind of performance in the first place.

See above.

You mean their competition with record breaking G84/G86 failure rates?

Can't say I know anyone with a faulty GeForce 7xxx card, infact I know a few who have had their cards for a long while. But maybe they were lucky too...

Right. So Intel (GMA) must be absolutely fantastic cards as it has the vast majority of it and are still growing. Much like McD's must serve great food because loads of people eat there. You just can't argue with that indeed. BTW, nvidia is losing to Intel and AMD lately, so that must mean bad things as well!

Macca's do serve "great" food. Cheap, easy, tastes nice. Isn't good for you but hey either is smoking. Can't really compare to graphics cards

Intel graphics cards come on many people's motherboards, and dedicated GPU's aren't an essential item. It's not like you can buy a mobo that comes with a free GPU capable of Crysis. Besides, Intel's GPU's suck bad for gaming and watching any hi-def videos. Like I said, they come with the mobo's and are not really sold separately.

I watched a wicked demo of a 5870 yesterday (triple monitors @ 1920x1200). Absolutely amazing. Oh, and its little brother the 5850 pwns a GTX285 too, despite being significantly cheaper (and also using less power)

Ah comparing some new ATI cards to the old NVIDIA cards? I just took a look here and did not see any "pwning" at all. Sure it gets about a 5% performance lead over the GTX 285 (if its lucky) and is 50 bucks or so cheaper but thats still comparing a new gen card to a very soon to be old gen. Just wait till the GT 300 series comes out then decide. Triple monitors aren't that new either. Heard of TH2GO before?

All that just for recommending something that the OP asked for

[awergh]

Ah comparing some new ATI cards to the old NVIDIA cards? I just took a look here and did not see any "pwning" at all. Sure it gets about a 5% performance lead over the GTX 285 (if its lucky) and is 50 bucks or so cheaper but thats still comparing a new gen card to a very soon to be old gen. Just wait till the GT 300 series comes out then decide

but remember the GTX285 is the top Nvidia single gpu card and the 5850 is the second ATI single gpu card.

You could be waiting a while for GT300 cards

Heard of TH2GO before?

Read a review on this, said it was servilely limited by the resolution they could run it at. And you cant have 6 displays with TH2GO

[CoffeeFiend]

Well actually there are plenty of HD4670's on Newegg for over $80

Just like you can get them for $60. The point was, they have better cards at that price ($60). But hey, I'm sure you can overpay for any card (that seems to be your "point")

Macca's do serve "great" food. Cheap, easy, tastes nice. Isn't good for you but hey either is smoking. Can't really compare to graphics cards

You said popularity = being good, whereas there is little to no correlation. Seems like you didn't get it. Not that nvidia is impressively popular in the first place mind you.

Intel graphics cards come on many people's motherboards, and dedicated GPU's aren't an essential item

It's very much becoming one, thanks to Vista, Win7, OpenGL accelerated apps like Photoshop CS4 and others (2001 is over). It does matter to people buying new PCs and OEMs. Either way, nvidia still losing market share to ATI (and Intel) lately.

Besides, Intel's GPU's suck bad for gaming and watching any hi-def videos

Funny, because I could have swore for a second you said nvidia Worst drivers ever (their XP drivers are OK, but their WDDM ones are just starting to be usable now, like 2 years late; oh, and broken H.264 HD decode acceleration too... or does that mostly work now, 2 years late?)

Ah comparing some new ATI cards to the old NVIDIA cards?

Sorry, they won't synchronize product launches for you, nothing I can do about that. You won't see *me* making excuses the day nvidia has best performance on their new cards that cost less (anyone could say "Hey, those are new. ATI will make new cards next!" too)

did not see any "pwning" at all

Then look at this, for example the numbers in gray. Yep, up to double the framerate (e.g. in Stormrise). Not bad for a cheaper card. And yes, I'm sure vaporware is probably better (not that it helps him getting his money's worth out of a $60 card now)

All that just for recommending something that the OP asked for

No, all that for saying a $80 card was better than a $60 card (or was it saying more expensive cards can be faster -- when ATI has faster cards at the same price?), then going on about that nvidia cards are less failure prone when it's anything but the case, and then somehow trying to say market share = being good (even when it even plays against yourself). Mind you, I had already mentioned a $60 nvidia card in my first post (something you haven't done yet, despite having written two lengthy posts )

[cluberti]

Arguments aside, buying a video card at $60 - $80 USD (either ATI or nVidia) should provide a much better experience than the 8400GS currently in the machine.

[Zenskas]

Just like you can get them for $60. The point was, they have better cards at that price ($60). But hey, I'm sure you can overpay for any card (that seems to be your "point")

No, the point is there are plenty of HD 4670 cards for over $80, not everyone is gonna go out and buy the very cheapest card of its class, some people like certain brands, warranties, bundles, coolers, PCB's etc, and no that you can overpay for any card.

You said popularity = being good, whereas there is little to no correlation. Seems like you didn't get it. Not that nvidia is impressively popular in the first place mind you.

I said that you can't really argue with market share = people are somehow still buying NVIDIA cards even though they are apparently so horrible in everything = they can't be that bad if people are still buying them. Not that popularity = good as such, although good things that work usually are popular.

It's very much becoming one, thanks to Vista, Win7, OpenGL accelerated apps like Photoshop CS4 and others (2001 is over). It does matter to people buying new PCs and OEMs. Either way, nvidia still losing market share to ATI (and Intel) lately.

Lots of people (general PC users) still stick with integrated graphics as it does what they want and comes on the mobo. Besides, ATI is also getting beat by Intels GPU's and if you look at the original chart here then you will notice ATI has also even gone down in market share since Q3 2008. And is loosing to Intel. Which shows that the general user does not care about dedicated GPU's but the OP does...

Funny, because I could have swore for a second you said nvidia Worst drivers ever (their XP drivers are OK, but their WDDM ones are just starting to be usable now, like 2 years late; oh, and broken H.264 HD decode acceleration too... or does that mostly work now, 2 years late?)

Fairly sure I said Intel, no need to try and joke about it (like in your first post). If their drivers suck so bad, then where is all the people complaining about it on this forum? Do you even have an NVIDIA card in any of your PC's? If not, then don't judge their drivers. Sure you may have had an NVIDIA card earlier (I understand you had a 8800GT) but the vast majority of people have had no issues (especially the 8800GT which is a very solid card). I have driver issues with my x1950 but you don't see me going and buying a 7950GT (which would be faster, quieter, use less power etc) as I had a alright deal on an x1950 so went and got it being as little as a fanboy as I can. My x1950 freezes in any 3d app when GPU-Z is open in the background. Never happened on any NVIDIA card on any PC I have built, but has happened to others with ATI cards online as well as mine. GPU-Z is pretty important in a little shuttle PC so I can monitor fan speeds, clock speeds and temps, but am forced to use another program (not as good). Also you are forced to install .net 2.0 with ATI's drivers which is a bit of a bummer but you don't hear me banishing ATI's cards because of these setbacks. In fact, I try to recommend both an ATI card and a good NVIDIA card if it hasn't been recommended yet.

Sorry, they won't synchronize product launches for you, nothing I can do about that. You won't see *me* making excuses the day nvidia has best performance on their new cards that cost less (anyone could say "Hey, those are new. ATI will make new cards next!" too)

Just said you couldn't judge ATI's cards totally against NVIDIA's cards until NVIDIA have a similar product lineup like they will soon. Of course a newer card will be faster and cheaper than older cards, doesn't mean NVIDIA cards suck.

Then look at this, for example the numbers in gray. Yep, up to double the framerate (e.g. in Stormrise). Not bad for a cheaper card. And yes, I'm sure vaporware is probably better (not that it helps him getting his money's worth out of a $60 card now)

OK so you have found a review in favor of the card by a lot, but I found one that showed just a slight increase in performance. Which to believe? You decide, but since the OP ain't gonna get one of these cards it doesn't really matter.

No, all that for saying a $80 card was better than a $60 card (or was it saying more expensive cards can be faster -- when ATI has faster cards at the same price?), then going on about that nvidia cards are less failure prone when it's anything but the case, and then somehow trying to say market share = being good (even when it even plays against yourself). Mind you, I had already mentioned a $60 nvidia card in my first post (something you haven't done yet, despite having written two lengthy posts )

No all that for recommending what the OP asked for. He asked for a good NVIDIA card. No-where did I see him say "hey what's a good GPU at $60?". I simply said that the 9500GT ain't that great (either is a 4650 really) and instead grab an $80 9600GT if you are looking for NVIDIA cards. Since NVIDIA cards fail so much then why do people still use them? Didn't say market share = being good, I said that NVIDIA has high market share meaning they really don't suck as far as dedicated GPU's go (please don't say Intel must make fantastic cards again) and that you are basically saying that all the people using NVIDIA cards are using crappy cards with bad drivers etc.

LOL. You have recommended a good $60 card while I haven't? Whoop-de-doo. You haven't recommended a good $500 card either? Like I said, he didn't ask for a $60 GPU, but a good NVIDIA card. I think I was a bit more spot on with the answer in my first post despite your lengthy posts.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Zenskas