Slashdot Mirror
Pushing P4 to 5.25GHz with Liquid Nitrogen
SkywalkerOS8 writes "The folks at Tom's Hardware have an article up about their attempt to overclock a Pentium 4 over 5 GHz using liquid nitrogen as cooling. A DivX video is available along with pictures of the custom copper cooling head they made."
reading things like these I'm reminded of the good old days where all you had to do was getting two 333MHz celerons, overclock them to 500MHz by upping the FSB, some socket-to-slot adaptors and *baddabing* you had a total of 1GHz for a bargain while using normals coolers. Was that only 3 or 4 years ago? *sigh*
This is a amusing article, but kind of misses the point. So one problem with running processors faster is that they get too hot and we can get around that by cooling it with liquid nitrogen. Cool, but CPU heat is just one design element contributing to the effective speed of the computer.
This is like saying that I should cool my VW with liquid nitrogen so that I can run the engine faster. Sure, I'll pick up some speed, but honestly there are lots of other factors preventing my VW from running at a more productive speed than how fast I can get the engine spinning. The shape (like the bus on a PC), the steering (peripherals), and mostly that the cops don't appreciate me going 328mph through the school zone.
www.voiceofthehive.com - Beekeeping and Honeybees for those who don't.
Its a true screenshot. What isn't true is the actual clock... I ran some ASM that had a typo in it, and it somehow accelerated the windows timer, thus making apps see my CPU as something faster.
Even more amazing is what 3D mark 03 sees. Yes, to that program, I have a 60.1Ghz processor (not a typo)
Image 2
And I didn't even have to use any more cooling than the laptops normal fan.
Any Questions? ;)
NeoThermic
Use my link above, or to view my server, NeoThermic.com
Bingo - thats the reason I dont go there anymore. They are Intel fanboyz from way back and by experience I come to expect nothing but bias from them. Good catch.
I've never noticed the bias towards Intel from THG until your post. I went through all of the processor summaries from the past 2 years and your right! They constantly praise Intel and never pass up the oportunity to take stabs at AMD.
Also, notice that Intel chips get plenty of there own articles while AMD is always placed in a comparison article that is bent toward Intel everytime.
"Overclocking is a fantasy of the DIY tinkerer "beating" the experts"
Whoah, time to lay off the meds. What do you care if someone wants to get all they can out of a product they bought?
Your post is a fine foil to dissuade someone from spending $500-$100 on OC'ing equipment. It fails miserably to describe why its bad for the average $25 heatsink buying OC'er. Hell the average Intel overclocker usually just uses the stock HSF. Do you really think you have a case when its so easy to take for example a P4 1.8 and overclock it to 2.4 with no extra money and no ill effects?
Your right overclocked computer can be unreliable, but that's why benchmark programs exist. If you can save $50-$75 by buying the lower end model and speeding it up what's wrong with that? I also don't really think your entitled to make the call whether someone has enough computing power as well. Am I allowed to tell you that you only need a '83 Yugo because YOU don't need anything more than 80hp?
These posts against overclocking never hold up and I don't know why you thought yours would.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
I wonder if you can attach quad monitors, quad mice and keyboards, and have a lanparty on once CPU. I know the radeon 9800 can go that far and already does miltiple monitors, I know of X projects to use multiple USB mice simultaneously and possibly multiple USB keyboards too.
hmmmmmmmmmm`
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky