Slashdot Mirror
AMD Optimal BIOS settings + Overclocking Guide
JMke writes "Here's a step by step guide on how to get the most out of your AMD setup. Overclocking tips and BIOS tweak settings discussed, as well as an overview of the more popular overclocking tools. Start your overclocking here!" Lots of good info here for getting the last bit of performance out of your system while also watching out for dangers that could fry your processor.
The point is though, that if I spend $500 on a (ficticious) 2GHz processor and $100 on cooling so I can run it at 2.1GHz, does it really make sense to do this when the 2.1GHz processor is available with a crappy (but adequate) fan for $550?
The chips are tested at a DIE temperature of 85C. However, the temperature sensor on you MB isn't at the die, it's at the packaging (or maybe just near the packaging), so it's not going to read as hot. A rule of thumb I've read is a 20 degrees difference, so that would mean 65C.
:)
Unfortunately, this is all academic because motherboard temperature sensors are notoriously non-calibrated, and I've seen them be 10C off or more! It's more useful to use MB sensors to monitor relative changes than absolute temperature. (In other words, the difference between temperatures running at idle and at load is probably accurate...but the absolute values are probably fuzzy).
Additionally, the fact that the chip was tested at 85C doesn't mean that it will be harmed by temperatures over 85C; it just means it's likely to not work (a bit won't flip somewhere on the chip). Your system will eventually lock up if this is happening. They used to test some chips at 95C or more, and military use chips get tested even higher, so that shows that the silicon chip itself won't be damaged at those temps...it's just functionality that will suffer.
If your chip is marginal, running for long times at higher temps can cause it to die quickly (atom migration, etc, can be more pronounced at higher temps) so some people will warn of running at very high temperatures. But this is very unlikely, and if it does eventually happen, hey...now you need to upgrade. Sweet.
The disc is the slowest point, add plenty of RAM as buffer, but nothing makes up for having a fast disc.
15,000 rpm, 3.6ms access time, 8Mb onboard buffer. And an HBA to match.
I find it ironic that people buy cheap systems with slow discs, slow network and insufficient RAM and then try to make it faster by overclocking the CPU.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Are overclocked CPUs more sensitive to heat, or is this just a "to be safe" recommendation? AMD says they're good up to 85C.
Overclocking is all about temperature.
So long as you don't mess with the Vcore, overclocking does not make a CPU more sensitive to heat. It just will get hotter. If you can keep the temperature of the die under control by dissapating the extra generated heat, there's no problem with overclocking, but it's instrumental that you have accurate temp readings.
I'm only familiar with Intel CPUs and they have an on-die temp sensor which generally is fairly accurate. The embedded CPUs I work with are rated up to 100C and generally work fine up to that temperature. I wouldn't want to run it continuously at that temperature for a very long time though.
Overclocking may result in a loss in stability but that generally doesn't mean you are about to damage the CPU (so long as the temp is not out of spec), it is more likely related to timing issues.
Now increasing the Vcore sounds like a very bad idea to me. I'm not an EE by education, but I would think that you could seriously shorten the lifespan of the CPU by doing this.
btw. What I don't understand in the "NEVER LET IT GET ABOVE 55C IN MY OPINION ON AIRCOOLING, OR 42C USING WATERCOOLING." statement is why the hell would it be depending on what type of cooling is used? This implies that they are not talking about die temperature, because for the die 55C is 55C, doesn't matter how it got there...