Noticeable or Negligible

[new2overclocking]

(I'm running an Iwill KK266 rev. 1.1 with a Duron 800. Inno GeForce2 MX)

Just a real-world question: aside from benchmarks, is there any noticeable difference in real-world applications in going from, say, a Duron 800 at 8x100 to overclocking it to 7x133 at 931 MHz? Is the performance gain worthwhile?

Also, if I overclock my FSB to 133 with PC133 memory, but keep my multiplier at 6x133= 798 MHz, do I have to increase my Vcore?

Oddly, I could run everything fine in Windows at 8x110 with my memory at 110+33=146 (WCPUID), but when I went to 6.5x133 (864) for the FSB and memory (no +33 in BIOS), things started locking up, even with Vcore at 1.75V. Does this sound right? I'd like to increase the FSB if possible, even if I have to stay at 800 MHz, if it will give me better performance.

Thanks for any information

[markedmundb]

Speaking from an Intel CPU Standpoint, upping the Bus will give you a better throughput, (but then that's cos Intel's are multi-locked).

[Hoot]

Which is better often depends upon what you are doing with your PC. Some programs will benefit more from a CPU that thinks faster and talks a little slower. Some will benefit from a CPU that thinks slower and talks faster. Think about it. If you are doing a calculation that is FPU intensive, then a faster FPU speed may help solve the calculation faster, but take a little bit longer getting the answer out. I don't know, makes sense to me :-)

Hoot

[oc jason]

a higher FSB is always noticable- if you get 800 by 8x100, or you go and do 7.5x107 it will be faster at the Higher FSB at the same megahurts(both =800 but the FSB of 107 will be faster-try to go 9.0x110=990, probably can go higher safely. That board will do eally high FSB ive seen 160FSB mhz with that board-also thats a good chip to have-go for the gig

[diehrd]

The answer is the real felt and seen performance gain is often only displayed in a bench mark test.the real life increase from 700 to 800 is a few percent,some people are sensitive enough to feel it,some apps may benifit,but the casual user will not.

Take a 1 gig and a 1.2 gig, overall you may not feel the difference in a big way.Again some will, and some programs will, but measured in seconds the difference is small.Example open Paint Shop Pro and time it on the 1 gig then on the 1.2 gig probobly no difference.

I have had 900,1 gig and now 1.2,the differences are not so great that I can jump up and down pointing to an app that is so much faster it is worth the jumping.

Now in bench marks I can point and jump up and down
My 1.2 is at 1.43,can i feel the speed difference no, do apps open faster maby,, if i was fast enough to read time that quickly.After 1 gig and decient ram and a decient video card,I doubt the real life performance is there to feel. BUT IN OUR DRAG RACES Commonly called bench marks,The gains are there!!

[Hoot]

Point well made Diehard. Thank you for a refreshing pause in the recent orgy of 1G vs 1.1G vs 1.2G vs 200 vs 266 vs whatever. A lot of people who frequent this forum have much deeper pockets than I do. I use my PC for many different purposes. Yes, some gaming also. I can't see any improvement running my $59.00 650 T-bird at 10x100 over my $42.00 600 Duron at 10x100. Both are cheap yet powerful CPUs. Both are excellent entry points into the Art of Overclocking versus buying your way to the top. Working these two "bargains" slowly up the speed chain has been fun and an excellent learning experience. I have also had the priveledge of meeting and exchanging ideas with some very neat people along the way, here at Overclockers.com. No doubt, I will end up spending more money than I should, over time, in order to inch my way up the speed chain, but the view along the way is quite nice.

Hoot