Home

News

Forums

Hardware

CPUs

Mainboards

Video

Guides

CPU Prices

Memory Prices

Shop



Sharky Extreme :


Latest News


- Acer Fires Up Two New Ferrari Notebooks
- Belkin Debuts Docking Station for ExpressCard-Equipped Notebooks
- Logitech 5.1 Speaker System Puts Your Ears At Eye Level
- Dell, Nvidia, and Intel Fire Up Overclockable Gaming Notebook
- Gateway Puts Premium Components Into Affordable Home Desktop
News Archives

Features

- SharkyExtreme.com: Interview with ATI's Terry Makedon
- SharkyExtreme.com: Interview with Seagate's Joni Clark
- Half-Life 2 Review
- DOOM 3 Review
- Unreal Tournament 2004 Review

Buyer's Guides

- September High-end Gaming PC Buyer's Guide
- September Value Gaming PC Buyer's Guide
- October Extreme Gaming PC Buyer's Guide

HARDWARE

  • CPUs


  • Motherboards

    - DFI LANPARTY UT nF4 Ultra-D Motherboard Review

  • Video Cards

    - Gigabyte GeForce 7600 GT 256MB Review
    - ASUS EN7900GT TOP 256MB Review
    - ASUS EN7600GT Silent 256MB Review
    - Biostar GeForce 7900 GT 256MB Review





  • SharkyForums.Com - Print: Why are the 566 and 600 Celerons the best choices for oveclocking?

    Why are the 566 and 600 Celerons the best choices for oveclocking?
    By slipgun December 14, 2000, 07:20 PM

    I thought that a 667 Celeron would serve me fine, but it turns out many say the 566 and 600 are the best... wtf?? They're all based on the same core, the only differences I seem to find are the have the highest thermal spec (90C) and the lowest thermal power design (11.9 and 12.6W)

    By Tech-Daddy December 15, 2000, 04:35 AM

    Lower clock multipliers tend to be more successful overclocks. You are reaching the upper end of multipliers currently on the 667 (10x?)

    By slipgun December 15, 2000, 09:21 AM

    That's it? Just the multiplier? Thought it was something more

    By Sketch December 15, 2000, 12:16 PM

    A lot of it probably has to do with the same thing that made the Celeron 300a so great for overclocking; yields. Think back to the days of the 300a. Intel's cash cow was the P2-450. Remember also that all a Celeron was in those days was a P2 core with a different cache organization, and Intel would routinely use cores that didn't meet speed specs to be high end P2's as slower P2's or Celerons. However, Intel's production techniques were getting so good, that they didn't make many that wouldn't make at least the 400 mark, and even those that didn't make 450 were getting rare. The Celeron's, especially the 300's were popular in the value market due to their price, so that's what a lot of the faster cores were being marketed at, because Intel could make more money selling faster processors at slower speeds than it could selling them at rated speed. For that reason, when you got a 300a, you were very often getting a core that could have just as easily been in a P2-450.

    I don't think we are seeing exactly the same thing now, since the cache is now on die (it was on a separate chip back then), but they probably do have good enough production techniques that the cores can easily make it high that their marked speed.

    By slipgun December 15, 2000, 07:33 PM

    That explains why the Celeron-II is a good overclocker but what I still don't understand is why a slightly lower multiplier (1x) would result in poorer overclocking??

    By slipgun December 16, 2000, 07:38 PM

    And what do thermal specs and thermal design ratings really mean???

    By Sketch December 18, 2000, 03:09 PM

    My assumpiton on lower multipliers overclocking better would be that the higher the multiplier, the more likely you are to "overshoot" your overclocking range. For example, a 10x multiplier would give you a 10MHz jump in CPU speed for every 1MHz jump in FSB speed. It's not so much an issue on those motherboards that offer 1MHz adjustments, but that's pretty significant in the light of the fact that some motherboard only offer a few preset FSB settings.

    By Marsolin December 18, 2000, 05:40 PM

    quote:Originally posted by slipgun:
    And what do thermal specs and thermal design ratings really mean???

    Chips are spec'd with max and min operating temperatures (what you get when reading a thermometer touching the chip). They also spec a typical wattage (how much power the chip draws from the supply) and thermal resistance of the package itself (used to determine the amount of needed airflow).

    By slipgun December 20, 2000, 05:13 AM

    Hmm... I still don't see why they say a 566 is more likely to run at 1.13GHz than a 667 at 1.12GHz

    By Subnova January 01, 2001, 11:24 PM

    wow slipgun, ya wanna go far with that celeron. But i think you should go with a Duron, less expensive, and you can get to 1.3ghz...

    By NEwBoY January 01, 2001, 11:42 PM

    quote:Originally posted by slipgun:
    That explains why the Celeron-II is a good overclocker but what I still don't understand is why a slightly lower multiplier (1x) would result in poorer overclocking??

    i am quoting this off of an explanation that i came through on the internet so dont bomb me..........

    a higher multiplier is favored more than a low multiplier for overclocking because a higher multiplier requires a lower FSB setting to achieve the same frequency than a lower multiplier would require

    for example, a P3 600 runs at 100x6 to achieve 600mhz, while a P3 600E runs at 133x4.5 to achieve 600mhz

    so when overclocking a 100mhz FSB P3 600 to overclock to 800mhz all you would need is a 133mhz FSB, which is within the capacity of a P3 core, on the other hand, to reach 800mhz with the P3 600EB you would require a 178mhz FSB!! so that is the reason why higher multipliers provide for easier overclocking in these types of situations

    By kordump January 03, 2001, 07:09 AM

    here's how it works(mostly)

    The maximum stable clock speed can be determined by the inverse of the maximum amount of time it could take for the data to be read from one latch and written to the next stage in the processor pipeline.

    During the manufacturing process the di are sorted by quality, with the best becoming 1Ghz+ all the way through to 8-900 or whatever and maybe half to 2/3 of the worst have to be thrown out. The higher the clock speed the fewer number of chips that can reach that speed.

    Occasionally intel make a small revision to the manufacturing process to incease clock speeds. say it ups the clock speeds into the 1.1-1.2 Ghz range, but intel is still making 600 Mhz PIII. what happens- intel packages this cpu that can do a 1 Ghz into a PIII 600 and ships it. This processor would be very overclockable, whereas if you bought the processor at 1 Ghz you wouldn't be able to get much more out of it.

    Generaly, the lowest end processors of a new stepping are the most overclockable.

    By chrisangelini January 04, 2001, 01:53 PM

    Slipgun,

    First off, I wouldn't expect too many Celeron's to reach 1.13GHz, regardless of their default operating frequency. Processors like the 566 are good to overclock because the chance of reaching a 100MHz FSB are *realistic.* A 566MHz processor on a 100MHz FSB will give you an 850MHz processor without running your PCI or AGP busses out of spec.

    The problem with, say, a 766MHz Celeron is that to hit the same 100MHz goal, you would have to use a 11.5x multiplier, making your goal 1150MHz - a little unrealistic.

    When people say lower multipliers are better, they usually refer to Celeron's and they are likely referring to the 100MHz FSB as a goal, to keep a stable system.

    Ciao!


    Contact Us | www.SharkyForums.com

    Copyright 1999, 2000 internet.com Corporation. All Rights Reserved.


    Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46

    previous page
    next page





    Copyright 2002 INT Media Group, Incorporated. All Rights Reserved. About INT Media Group | Press Releases | Privacy Policy | Career Opportunities