Strange overclocking results

[Shamrock]

In an effort to squeeze every last bit of horsepower out of my behind-the-times system, I finally got some decent cooling installed and have lately been testing various performance tweaks. Here's the reason I am posting this in Hardware:Obviously, increasing the fsb speed increases performance all across the board. However, when I overclock my video card, it lowers cpu performance by a margin large enough to drastically limit any increase in video performance. Another odd finding: by leaving SPD to determine the timings for memory in the BIOS, it was choosing slower timings than the RAM is rated for. When I changed the timings all at once the computer would not boot. Changing and testing them one at a time allowed me to lower them all around. Here's the strange part: even though the bios now indicates 2-4-4-8, Everest shows 2-5-4-9. Beats me how/why. So, if anyone could enlighten me I would appreciate it. Incidentally, I realize that the software regulating overclocking of the video card must eat some cpu cycles, but I am surprised at how much.

[FuzzButt]

Maybe a bit more system info could shed more light on the issue.Uping the memory speed is one way but maybe I would start let it pick the timings and concentrate on upping the FSB speed.Best to just leave well enough alone and concentrate on things you can do to speed up windows instead of a little bit of PC preformance that may effect reliability.

[Grasshopper]

Couple things...Heat??? You may have not implemented your cooling methods correctly and the heat is causing degradation.Some parts are just not amenable to OC'ing. You may have a part that will, by design, become unstable under duress.Did you do your homework before OC'ing? I know that there are right ways and wrong ways to OC all the pieces/parts.Good luck!

[Shamrock]

Sorry for the delay in replying. Been tied up. I mean no disprespect to those of you who took the time to reply in terms of your computing knowledge nor the fact that you took the time to reply in the first place, however, I did not expect this thread to uncover so much anti-overclocking bias. I wasn't really inquiring for opinions as to whether it is a good idea. I am aware of the risks and accept them as necessary at this time. As I explained above, my system is about 3 or 4 generations, depending on how you count them, removed from the current top of the line. Until my finances improve I need to get all the performance out of it I can. The reason for this is irrelevant. And yes, I did my homework, hence the questions in my original post for which I thought there might be a couple of easy answers, and not a request for help as to how to further obtain performance. That is, I was wondering if any of you might happen to know or be able to suggest why cpu overhead be so high for something that it seems to me is essentially a function of the video card, and I was wondering why it is that SPD is telling the bios different timings for RAM than they are rated for by the manufacturer? (I've been curious about this because I believed that, in principal, spd was intended to establish just that, the default, rated speed.) Changing to the rated timings (no lower) has produced such a rediculously noticeable increase in performance I was disappointed I didn't think to try it sooner. For the record, current idle temp is approx 40C and under maximum load (including the vid card) is approx 45C.I have optimized windows to the point where it is highly unlikely I would obtain anything more than a fraction of a percent in increased performance from further change there. But again, this is irrelevant to the post imo. I really thought they were rather straight forward questions given this is the hardware section. I guess I will take my inquiry elsewhere. Thanks again for your time.

Edited May 2, 2006 by Shamrock

[Marsden11]

Another odd finding: by leaving SPD to determine the timings for memory in the BIOS, it was choosing slower timings than the RAM is rated for. When I changed the timings all at once the computer would not boot. Changing and testing them one at a time allowed me to lower them all around. Here's the strange part: even though the bios now indicates 2-4-4-8, Everest shows 2-5-4-9. Beats me how/why.

Do you have the latest BIOS version? You are assuming the BIOS of your motherboard is perfectly written by the manufacturer. Sounds like your BIOS has unresolved issues. Your BIOS may be incorrctly displaying SPD settings and or Everest may be reading the SPD settings incorrectly.You might want to try a newer motherboard that has better overclocking support.

[lewmur]

In an effort to squeeze every last bit of horsepower out of my behind-the-times system, I finally got some decent cooling installed and have lately been testing various performance tweaks. Here's the reason I am posting this in Hardware:Obviously, increasing the fsb speed increases performance all across the board. However, when I overclock my video card, it lowers cpu performance by a margin large enough to drastically limit any increase in video performance. Another odd finding: by leaving SPD to determine the timings for memory in the BIOS, it was choosing slower timings than the RAM is rated for. When I changed the timings all at once the computer would not boot. Changing and testing them one at a time allowed me to lower them all around. Here's the strange part: even though the bios now indicates 2-4-4-8, Everest shows 2-5-4-9. Beats me how/why. So, if anyone could enlighten me I would appreciate it. Incidentally, I realize that the software regulating overclocking of the video card must eat some cpu cycles, but I am surprised at how much.

Obviously you are on a very limited budget or you wouldn't be using old hardware. So I won't be dumb and tell you to buy new hardware. What little I know about overclocking tells me that it isn't that unusual that speeding up a particular component can degrade overall performance. What I would suggest is that you go to a forum that is devoted to overclocking to find the people who are up to date on the subject. You might try; http://www.overclockersclub.com/guides/

[FuzzButt]

I've overclocked the snot out of my PC's and have seen from trial and error that you can expect the unexpected on any piece of hardware. Old or new it does not matter. Some gains can be had sometimes they are like free speed upgrades other times they seriously effect system stability or at the least reliability.Even the system I am using to type this on only likes 5-8% overclocking. It does not like the Dynamic OC'ing the Mobo has built in nor does it like upping the memory timings. I have memory that is rated for overclocking. I also have a board that Tom's Hardware ran up to 1000 MHz FSB speeds. The best I have seen was 850 MHz. You still need to tell us what exact hardware you are trying to get the most out of. We need detailed specifics. Your Mobo, Memory, Processor (even the exact ID of Proc), Video card, Hard drives (specifically how they are connected) I see some of your system info across several other posts. AOpen Mobo running at 200 FSB, Sempron 1.6 running at 2.1GHz, ATI 9600Pro. Some parts don't like going faster than the PCI Bus was designed for, 33.3MHz. Some will do 37MHz just fine though. Data loss/corruption can occur if you go past design limits. I have lost data and needed to reinstall windows/restore from backup. Certain hard drive controllers do not like speed increases on the PCI bus. Uping your Front Side Bus speed is the place I would start. Increasing the memory timing is not really overclocking. Also increasing the memory timings may result the need to increase the memory voltage to get stability back. Since your on a limited budget then possible damage to your hardware should be of concern.So your half a GHz over clocked basically and you want more? What is it your trying to achieve? I'd pat yourself on the back and say job well done. I think that is about all you can wring out of your present hardware without adding in special cooling.

Edited May 2, 2006 by FuzzButt

[Shamrock]

Thank you, Marsden, and lewmur, for your resposes. I may finally be getting somewhere. Unfortunately there are still those insisting on filling the bit bucket with irrelevancies. I appreciate your good intentions but again, advice on how to overclock is off topic imo.At any rate, I do have the most recent bios version. (Get it? Rate? Har har.) A detection error seems obvious to me now but somehow it seems to me there's the remote possibility there's more to it than that.I will certainlly review the info on that site, lewmur. Thanks for the referral. It was nevertheless apparent to me I chose poorly in posting my question here at the time I posted my last reply.Peace.

Edited May 2, 2006 by Shamrock

[Marsden11]

I did not even mention your memory. Is it top rated memory? Is it from a no-name manufacturer or Micron?Memory comes in different flavors beside clock speed. Like CL2, CL2.5, or CL3. Your memory may not be happy with you tweaking the SPD settings.Every little thing can add up and it becomes the sum of all those different variables.Another thing to consider... motherboards tend to slowly fail as time goes by. The caps begin to dry out after years of use and before you know it, system components begin to fail like IDE channels or USB ports.At some point you will have to determine the reality of older equipment verses any speed gains you hope to achieve.

[FuzzButt]

Well at any rate whatever the issue with your cas/ras reporting issues I would suggest that you get what you pay for. Your asking too much from 2nd tier parts. You say in other posts that you have 2.1GHz out of the 1.6GHz rated Processor. If you can keep that stable call it quits your pushing it. Memory tweaking is really not worth the trouble. At the point where you are at in speed increase even running a 2-2-2-6 speeds are not going to make much difference.Also keep in mind after you fix one bottle neck there is another right around the corner. Even if you had a top of the line CPU on that board there is still CPU-Memory issues, CPU-Northbridge issues and the AGP video bus is only so quick.

[Grasshopper]

Unfortunately there are still those insisting on filling the bit bucket with irrelevancies. I appreciate your good intentions but again, advice on how to overclock is off topic imo.It was nevertheless apparent to me I chose poorly in posting my question here at the time I posted my last reply.

Whatever, dude I've found that most computer problems belong to the KISS method of solving and 90% percent of the time, in my humble experience, that one simple thing is the problem and not a highly technical issue. I don't know how many times I've tried to pin a mobo problem on a failing power supply. If you'll notice, in this forum, when someone presents a problem, the first thing any of us do is focus on simple, easy to overlook things. It's only natural (since you didn't post all of your hardware specs, even after two requests) that when someone helps you to start simple and get more difficult...it's a double check. So help us out when we ask for info/specs or double check the easy stuff and don't try to deny that you may have to actually upgrade hardware in order to get the speed you want.

[Shamrock]

wtf, over?your original post is nothing but overclocking.ppl responded in a best-effort to up you pc's performance; i threw in some os stuff - now that would be off topic.

Er. No.I asked two questions. 1. Why would the spd readings obtained by the bios differ from the rating provided by the manufacturer? 2. Why would cpu usage increase by such a large factor when overclocking the video card? It is true that question 2 is prompted by the fact that the video card is, in fact, overclocked. But I requested no assistance with furthering this goal nor that of overclocking in general. I only make an issue of this because I am fully aware this is not an overlcock-specific forum and had my question been intended for one, I would have posted elsewhere in the first place. Now, I am interested in knowing in what way I was unclear in my original post since apparently I was. Edited May 5, 2006 by Shamrock