A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Simulators
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

rFactor/9800 pro



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 18th 04, 10:25 AM
Uwe Schürkamp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 20:50:11 -0600, Dave Henrie wrote:

> I'm not picking on you Dino, just commenting on the existence of OCing
> at all in these 2 to 3ghz days.
>


not picking on you either, but:

>>> 2000.0/1800

1.111

and:

>>> 105.0/100

1.05

so: overclocking from 1.8 to 2.0 means an even *larger* gain than
going from 100 to 105 (unless that was a typo and you intended to say
going from 100 to 150, because then:

>>> 150.0/100

1.5 ;-)


all the best,

uwe "I feel like nitpicking today"



--
mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox)
Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/
Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E)
GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61
Ads
  #12  
Old November 18th 04, 11:32 AM
Dave Henrie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Uwe =?iso-8859-15?Q?Sch=FCrkamp?= > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 20:50:11 -0600, Dave Henrie wrote:
>
>> I'm not picking on you Dino, just commenting on the existence of
>> OCing
>> at all in these 2 to 3ghz days.
>>

>
> not picking on you either, but:
>
>>>> 2000.0/1800

> 1.111
>
> and:
>
>>>> 105.0/100

> 1.05
>
> so: overclocking from 1.8 to 2.0 means an even *larger* gain than
> going from 100 to 105 (unless that was a typo and you intended to say
> going from 100 to 150, because then:
>
>>>> 150.0/100

> 1.5 ;-)
>
>
> all the best,
>
> uwe "I feel like nitpicking today"
>
>
>


nit away Uwe... I was hoping NOBODY was paying attention to the
specifics. I just pulled those numbers out of thin air. But the idea
still holds..With processor speeds so very much faster than the good ol
days...why BOTHER overclocking?

  #13  
Old November 18th 04, 01:21 PM
Uwe Schürkamp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 04:32:59 -0600, Dave Henrie wrote:
> nit away Uwe... I was hoping NOBODY was paying attention to the
> specifics. I just pulled those numbers out of thin air. But the idea
> still holds..With processor speeds so very much faster than the good ol
> days...why BOTHER overclocking?


of course you're absolutely right, Dave. If you can go from 2000 to
3000MHz, it might make a noticeable difference (like in the good old
days as you said), anything else is just taking unnecessary risks in
my opinion, too.

cheers,

uwe


--
mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox)
Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/
Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E)
GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61
  #14  
Old November 18th 04, 06:03 PM
Mitch_A
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I overclock a 3gig Prescott to 3.75 and the temps never get over 120F. Not
much risk for a free 750Mhz which adds a few FPS.

I see your point about the increase not being as great as the good ole days
of a Cel300a OC'd to 450MHz but I dont understand this paranoia about
OC'ing. If you could get a *FREE* 50HP for your car wouldnt you?

Mitch


"Uwe Schürkamp" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 04:32:59 -0600, Dave Henrie wrote:
>> nit away Uwe... I was hoping NOBODY was paying attention to the
>> specifics. I just pulled those numbers out of thin air. But the idea
>> still holds..With processor speeds so very much faster than the good ol
>> days...why BOTHER overclocking?

>
> of course you're absolutely right, Dave. If you can go from 2000 to
> 3000MHz, it might make a noticeable difference (like in the good old
> days as you said), anything else is just taking unnecessary risks in
> my opinion, too.
>
> cheers,
>
> uwe
>
>
> --
> mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox)
> Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/
> Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E)
> GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61



  #15  
Old November 18th 04, 07:17 PM
EldredP
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

>If you could get a *FREE* 50HP for your car wouldnt you?
>


No, because it wouldn't be free for long. I'd just get more tickets... :-(

Eldred
--
http://www.umich.edu/~epickett

GPLRank -6.0 MoGPL rank +267.80
Ch.Rank +52.58
Hist. +82.34
N2k3 rank: -1.182
Slayer Spektera lvl 79 assassin
Slayer Spectral_K lvl 44 Necro
US East
  #16  
Old November 18th 04, 10:36 PM
Kendt Eklund
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dave Henrie > wrote in message .97.136>...
[snip]
>
> nit away Uwe... I was hoping NOBODY was paying attention to the
> specifics. I just pulled those numbers out of thin air. But the idea
> still holds..With processor speeds so very much faster than the good ol
> days...why BOTHER overclocking?


There are moments when the available CPUs are right at the limit and
not a whole lot can be gained, but some of the latest CPUs are *very*
overclockable - I just got an AMD Barton XP Mobile that normally runs
at 2ghz, which I have running at 2.5Ghz (that's a 3400+ rating) on air
cooling.
Not only do you get the pure increase in CPU speed, but this is also
done via faster FSB, which speeds CPU<->Mem transfers significantly as
well.

Kendt
  #17  
Old November 18th 04, 11:09 PM
Uwe Schürkamp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:03:53 GMT, Mitch_A wrote:

> OC'ing. If you could get a *FREE* 50HP for your car wouldnt you?


If it meant more fuel consumption and less miles to the gallon:
no. ;-)

cheers,

uwe




--
mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox)
Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/
Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E)
GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61
  #19  
Old November 19th 04, 06:09 AM
Don Burnette
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I just simply can not run a processor without overclocking it, or a video
card. That is just not in my nature, when I know there is some reserve hp to
be garnished and let loose. I've done it with every processor since the
celeron 300A, and am currently doing it with an AMd XP2800+ overclocked to
3200+ speeds.
In 3d, I run my ATI 9800 Pro at 413/374.

I ain't happy unless I am tinkerin/tweaking, and just can't go too long
without upgrading something.

I think I am addicted....





--
Don Burnette



Mitch_A wrote:
> I overclock a 3gig Prescott to 3.75 and the temps never get over
> 120F. Not much risk for a free 750Mhz which adds a few FPS.
>
> I see your point about the increase not being as great as the good
> ole days of a Cel300a OC'd to 450MHz but I dont understand this
> paranoia about OC'ing. If you could get a *FREE* 50HP for your car
> wouldnt you?
> Mitch
>
>
> "Uwe Schürkamp" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 04:32:59 -0600, Dave Henrie wrote:
>>> nit away Uwe... I was hoping NOBODY was paying attention to
>>> the specifics. I just pulled those numbers out of thin air. But
>>> the idea still holds..With processor speeds so very much faster
>>> than the good ol days...why BOTHER overclocking?

>>
>> of course you're absolutely right, Dave. If you can go from 2000 to
>> 3000MHz, it might make a noticeable difference (like in the good old
>> days as you said), anything else is just taking unnecessary risks in
>> my opinion, too.
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> uwe
>>
>>
>> --
>> mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox)
>> Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/
>> Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E)
>> GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61






  #20  
Old November 19th 04, 12:10 PM
Jussi Koukku
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 04:32:59 -0600, Dave Henrie
> wrote something like:
>specifics. I just pulled those numbers out of thin air. But the idea
>still holds..With processor speeds so very much faster than the good ol
>days...why BOTHER overclocking?


Ok, my Athlon 2500+ is faster than my old Celeron 1000@1450MHz, and
way faster then the good old 366@616MHz. So does that mean that it's
fast enough? So fast that there's no need to overclock? I don't think
so. The fps increase e.g. in GTR demo is rather big when I pump the
default 333MHz FSB (DDR) to 444MHz and go from 1.83GHz to 2.45GHz.

A cpu that fast at default speed costs over 150 euros more than the
2500+. That's why I bother to o/c.
--
- Jussi Koukku -
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.