For years I've run this computer at advertised processor clock speed, and all my bus settings on fairly conservative timing (because I really don't know enough to do otherwise).

I can't afford to build a new box right now, and it seems that Barton core chips demand a premium. I find that wild, as it's a relatively old architecture.

Mine is a 2100+ Thoroughbred (Rev. B; model 681) core running at 1733 MHz and 266MHz FSB.

I've heard that this one will take a bit more punishment. As it is, this system has been rock solid for years.

Stupid to mess with it? My CPU temps hold steady between 35deg C and 38deg C, even under continuous full load. What should I consider a safe limit?

1/4/2007 7:17:47 PM

Surely somebody can impart some knowledge on this to my n00b ass.

1/4/2007 8:22:51 PM

The real question is: What's your performance gain?

If you can get a multiplier of 1.3-1.5x the manufacturer's speed and keep the system stable, sure, you'll enjoy a short-term gain while wearing down the life of the chip. Normally that isn't possible with stock cooling solutions though. And a GOOD cooling solution will be throwing money into a system you need to replace anyways.

If you don't have close to a gig of ram in the system, put your money there. Otherwise, save it for your next system.

1/4/2007 8:40:27 PM

That's as good a solution as any.

In reality, this one does me fine. It's a little slow at times, but I live with it. I could do a little house cleaning here and there, and maybe things would be a little better.

System's about 3.25 years old. I keep taunting myself with visions of a new machine which would be so much faster, etc. but in reality, it would be extra money i don't need to spend. And i don't really do anything that would justify putting one together.

I could use a better video card, though. This one's 64MB with an SiS chipset. What a hunk of shit. But it was damn cheap at the time.

1/4/2007 9:04:50 PM

overclcoking that cpu is a matter increasing the fsb. note doing that stresses all the other parts as well as the cpu. that cpu shouodl be able to run alot faster without shortening the life too much. people don't realize cpsu are designed to run 10-15 years at their rated speed and theres no way in hell u'll even have ur cpu for half that so overclock that bitch till the wheels fall off. my opeteron has been runing at 3ghz(1.8ghz is normal) for over 1.5 yrs now with no ill effects. with proper cooling and power it shoudln't be a problem.

1/4/2007 11:40:50 PM

Overclocking is a hobby, which means it uses up time.

Just stick with what you have, even a good overclock on that chipset isn't going to feel like a new computer, it will however eat more electricity and more money (and more time).

1/5/2007 12:27:10 AM

instead of calling it "overclocking" you should call it, "staring at the boot-up screen"

1/5/2007 1:22:27 AM

while it's true the opprutunity cost and risk of overclocking will probaly equate to more than upgrading ,he's already stated he doens't have cash but he obviously has time. trust me i could feel the difference between my 1700+ (tbread b) at stock speeds compared to it at 2.2ghz back when i had a socket A. the socket a platform was limited my memory bandwidth so by increasing the fsb u gain more than just an increase in cpu speed.






[Edited on January 5, 2007 at 2:34 AM. Reason : .]

1/5/2007 2:11:58 AM

http://www.overclockers.com
Go and read, my young padawan.

I used to be into all that shit--watercooling, overclocking, the whole 9 yards. Then I realized it was stupid, and bought a Mac. Now I spend my money on real hobbies, like diving.

1/5/2007 2:43:32 AM

^You still liking my iMac?

And seriously, waste your money and time elsewhere. You'll just end up killing your CPU and using it as a keychain.

/troll

1/5/2007 3:03:44 AM

Willy's right...I did make a keychain from an old Athlon XP.

1/5/2007 3:09:36 AM