tell me your opinions

JunK said:
a cooler isn't going to magically let you overclock a huge amount more, i can overclock my 550 BE to 3.5 too but it still doesn't have an overheating issue in the least so i don't need an aftermarket cooler.
Click to expand...

lol an aftermarket cooler plays a huge part in out much you can overclock though. I think with my stock i got ot around 3.0 ghz and then adding a cooler i got to 3.65 24/7 but i can go higher but its not worth it
 
PewPewBangBang said:
lol an aftermarket cooler plays a huge part in out much you can overclock though. I think with my stock i got ot around 3.0 ghz and then adding a cooler i got to 3.65 24/7 but i can go higher but its not worth it
Click to expand...

It does not play a "huge" part. What plays a "huge" part is the processor itself. Some processors overclock well, others don't. You could take the world's best aftermarket cooler, magically triple its effectiveness, and my AMD X2 6400+ still wouldn't overclock worth a darn because the chip is just a terrible overclocker.

Aftermarket coolers allow more overclocking than stock coolers, but the biggest (by far) factor in how far a chip will go is the design of the chip.
 
Ryken said:
It does not play a "huge" part. What plays a "huge" part is the processor itself. Some processors overclock well, others don't. You could take the world's best aftermarket cooler, magically triple its effectiveness, and my AMD X2 6400+ still wouldn't overclock worth a darn because the chip is just a terrible overclocker.

Aftermarket coolers allow more overclocking than stock coolers, but the biggest (by far) factor in how far a chip will go is the design of the chip.
Click to expand...

+1 for speaking the truth
 
Ryken said:
It does not play a "huge" part. What plays a "huge" part is the processor itself. Some processors overclock well, others don't. You could take the world's best aftermarket cooler, magically triple its effectiveness, and my AMD X2 6400+ still wouldn't overclock worth a darn because the chip is just a terrible overclocker.

Aftermarket coolers allow more overclocking than stock coolers, but the biggest (by far) factor in how far a chip will go is the design of the chip.
Click to expand...

arent all that aftermarket coolers do is just, well, keep it cooler?
 
80108 said:
arent all that aftermarket coolers do is just, well, keep it cooler?
Click to expand...

yes but lower temps allow for higher overclocks.....yes i understand some processors overclock better than others but they all overclock pretty well these days.....yes sometimes you get a bad chip where the company took a bad chip which couldn't clock as well and put it in a lower end processor but still, temps help a lot.

Without a aftermarket cooler you wont be able to overclock much, my graphics card used to artifact every time i overclocked it because it was reaching temps already of around 80-100 celsius (yes its an ATI 4850, one of the first to come out) I put an aftermarket cooler on it and i could finally overclock it a decent amount but i still think i got a bad card because i can't overclock as high as other........i got around 730mhz core and 1140 memory

My Q6600 used to be only able to go to 3.0ghz with stock cooling without having insane temps or voltages.......i replaced it with an OCZ vendetta and now i can almost max voltage and such without worrying about temps and getting my speed up to 3.65 ghz

I realized what your saying and i agree also, it all depends on the chip itself but many overclockers will tell you that the cooler still plays a big role....how bout 2nd biggest after the processor itself? sound good? lol ;)
 
PewPewBangBang said:
yes but lower temps allow for higher overclocks.....yes i understand some processors overclock better than others but they all overclock pretty well these days.....yes sometimes you get a bad chip where the company took a bad chip which couldn't clock as well and put it in a lower end processor but still, temps help a lot.

Without a aftermarket cooler you wont be able to overclock much, my graphics card used to artifact every time i overclocked it because it was reaching temps already of around 80-100 celsius (yes its an ATI 4850, one of the first to come out) I put an aftermarket cooler on it and i could finally overclock it a decent amount but i still think i got a bad card because i can't overclock as high as other........i got around 730mhz core and 1140 memory

My Q6600 used to be only able to go to 3.0ghz with stock cooling without having insane temps or voltages.......i replaced it with an OCZ vendetta and now i can almost max voltage and such without worrying about temps and getting my speed up to 3.65 ghz

I realized what your saying and i agree also, it all depends on the chip itself but many overclockers will tell you that the cooler still plays a big role....how bout 2nd biggest after the processor itself? sound good? lol ;)
Click to expand...

most of these newer chips are 45nm, which i hear are very good for overclocking.
 
I'll give you second, but it's like the second that Roddick got at Wimbledon. It wasn't very close.
 
Ryken said:
I'll give you second, but it's like the second that Roddick got at Wimbledon. It wasn't very close.
Click to expand...

lol ouch........w/e to me and a lot of overclockers.........the cooler matters a lot, liquid nitrogen tests by AMD anyone??? they got to those speeds from purely temps basically, okay they had a processor that allowed those types of temps and one that wasn't a defect but dude...okay you have a really good processor, no problems....how high can you go with it without a cooler??? not much i say
 
80108 said:
most of these newer chips are 45nm, which i hear are very good for overclocking.
Click to expand...

yea....the i7 920 gets over 4.0ghz with air cooling which is amazing

My 65nm is doing fine though :P pretty healthy overclock for a 65nm quad
 
PewPewBangBang said:
lol ouch........w/e to me and a lot of overclockers.........the cooler matters a lot, liquid nitrogen tests by AMD anyone??? they got to those speeds from purely temps basically, okay they had a processor that allowed those types of temps and one that wasn't a defect but dude...okay you have a really good processor, no problems....how high can you go with it without a cooler??? not much i say
Click to expand...

i would say they are both equal, because without a good cooler, you will fry your proc, but without a good chip, the extra cooling power is useless.
 
80108 said:
i would say they are both equal, because without a good cooler, you will fry your proc, but without a good chip, the extra cooling power is useless.
Click to expand...

Yes pretty true....the extra cooling isn't useless though, even if you have a bad chip you can still overclock it a little bit, not as much obviously but more than with a stock cooling.

My ATI 4850 with stock cooling could not overclock more than 20mhz without artifacting......I was completely bummed out, my temps were around 70-90 celsius which was supposed to be normal. I went out and got a Thermaltake DuOrb to see what it would do knowing that it might now help at all. My temps dropped to around 30-40 celsius. I tried overclocking once again, i got my clocks as i posted before up to 730 and 1140......i think thats pretty good considering i couldn't even overclock it before.

Anyhow...this is a stupid argument anyway, both are needed in general and going on with this doesnt help anything at all
 
PewPewBangBang said:
Yes pretty true....the extra cooling isn't useless though, even if you have a bad chip you can still overclock it a little bit, not as much obviously but more than with a stock cooling.

My ATI 4850 with stock cooling could not overclock more than 20mhz without artifacting......I was completely bummed out, my temps were around 70-90 celsius which was supposed to be normal. I went out and got a Thermaltake DuOrb to see what it would do knowing that it might now help at all. My temps dropped to around 30-40 celsius. I tried overclocking once again, i got my clocks as i posted before up to 730 and 1140......i think thats pretty good considering i couldn't even overclock it before.

Anyhow...this is a stupid argument anyway, both are needed in general and going on with this doesnt help anything at all
Click to expand...

lol true.omg i cant wait for the dx11 cards
 
the 9400 does pretty well with Cs:S&DoD:S on those settings, the 200 series are for the higher end games, like crysis or TF2, for now the 9400 is pretty decent if you were to ask me, and if you're buying a 200 later on, go with he 9400 as the prices will definitely drop. Idk about Tf2 though, it might still be laggy with your settings.
 
Episoco said:
the 9400 does pretty well with Cs:S&DoD:S on those settings, the 200 series are for the higher end games, like crysis or TF2, for now the 9400 is pretty decent if you were to ask me, and if you're buying a 200 later on, go with he 9400 as the prices will definitely drop. Idk about Tf2 though, it might still be laggy with your settings.
Click to expand...

well i am thinking about getting an ATI card since i have more experience with them and they will have price drops in a few days because of the 5 series, but does anyone know how good 4830's are?
 
80108 said:
well i am thinking about getting an ATI card since i have more experience with them and they will have price drops in a few days because of the 5 series, but does anyone know how good 4830's are?
Click to expand...

4830's are like ~5-10 FPS behind a 4850? maybe less but its around that much slower
 
PewPewBangBang said:
4830's are like ~5-10 FPS behind a 4850? maybe less but its around that much slower
Click to expand...

and also, is there a noticable difference between DDR2 800 and DDR3 1333? i just sold my old computer and im just wondering before i buy my new computer
 
80108 said:
and also, is there a noticable difference between DDR2 800 and DDR3 1333? i just sold my old computer and im just wondering before i buy my new computer
Click to expand...

well DDR3 is newer......faster.....but the problem with them is they tend to have higher latencies. Like the timings. DDR2 timings are like 5-5-5-15 or something for DDR2 1066 gaming memory. DDR3 typically run around like 9-9-9-24.
You should probably google this and you will probably find a bunch of tests run by professionals about DDR3 vs DDR2 memory because this is a pretty big question being asked.
 
PewPewBangBang said:
well DDR3 is newer......faster.....but the problem with them is they tend to have higher latencies. Like the timings. DDR2 timings are like 5-5-5-15 or something for DDR2 1066 gaming memory. DDR3 typically run around like 9-9-9-24.
You should probably google this and you will probably find a bunch of tests run by professionals about DDR3 vs DDR2 memory because this is a pretty big question being asked.
Click to expand...

well how noticable is the difference is a game? is the extra 25-30 bucks worth it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top