-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Stupidly Hugh Overclocks!!
- Thread starter PHILIP1193
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2004
- Location
- England
I think the one i am least probably to believe is the barton, that IS high... as for stability -- why does this come into the equation? This is about raw speed, not about using it for months.
IMHO running a machine for afew hours on LN2 is more of an achievement than most air overclocks. If it weren't for these guys, pushing it all the time, how would we know what the best hardware is?
~t0m
EDIT: The P4 ghz record is a P4 Prescott engineering sample, Multi x21 @ 5.6-something ghz. Killer =]
~t0m
IMHO running a machine for afew hours on LN2 is more of an achievement than most air overclocks. If it weren't for these guys, pushing it all the time, how would we know what the best hardware is?
~t0m
EDIT: The P4 ghz record is a P4 Prescott engineering sample, Multi x21 @ 5.6-something ghz. Killer =]
~t0m
apu318
Disabled
- Joined
- May 22, 2004
what the hell you gunna do with 5.6 ghz?! launch a nuke?! jeez. still pretty f'in cool though. I cant gey my xp 1800 above 2.04 gigs 
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2003
- Location
- Dallas
I would like to see those guys max the FSB and lower there multis.. I bet they can get some rad ram speeds...
- Joined
- May 23, 2004
apu318 said:what the hell you gunna do with 5.6 ghz?! launch a nuke?! jeez. still pretty f'in cool though. I cant gey my xp 1800 above 2.04 gigs
actually the computers that launch nukes are like 15 years old, probally 386's or somthing...and what would i do with 5.6ghz? i'd run EVERY BENCHMARK I COULD FIND AND LAY ALL PREVIOUS RECORDS TO WASTE, MUAHAHA then i'd sell the chip on e-bay for some stupid amount of money.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2004
- Location
- Where am I? Who am I?
hey look at this, I wish it were real (I edited the one above)
(That means its fake!!!)
FAKE I SAY!!!
http://aaronds.no-ip.com/files\pub/hugeOC.bmp
(That means its fake!!!)
FAKE I SAY!!!
http://aaronds.no-ip.com/files\pub/hugeOC.bmp
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2004
- Location
- West Palm beach Flarida
Drec said:
hahaha, yes, agreed.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2004
- Location
- north of penguin land
i wonder how long it would take to boot up windows xp w/ 5.6 ghz. he he he. i tell ya though, it would be pretty nice to have your chip down to zeroish celcius. :-\ too bad itll never happen.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2001
- Location
- Mauritius
Yeah but you had a TBred not a Palomino! The gold standard for a palomino was probably achieving 2GHz (typical on air unlocked was around 1.85GHz). No way could you get a pally to 2.35Ghz without extreme cooling.Atari said:
Yup, LN2 overclockers are crazy. It's cool to see how far they push it, but personally I'll stick with 24/7 overclocking (i.e. an overclock that can run 24/7 nice and stable without any problems). I guess you can start getting up towards those speeds on high end phase change though.
Anyways, it probably won't be long until some other crazy overclocker with too much LN2 beats those
Anyways, it probably won't be long until some other crazy overclocker with too much LN2 beats those
Im just waiting for somone to break the 6.0ghz barrier
oh and the processors that launch nukes are NOT 386's no way
its on goverment supercomputers probably in the 10ghz range back then now its probably somewhere ungodly high
hey its the US goverment they can have anything they want they have enough money to pay for it..lol or the tax payers to
oh and the processors that launch nukes are NOT 386's no way
its on goverment supercomputers probably in the 10ghz range back then now its probably somewhere ungodly high
hey its the US goverment they can have anything they want they have enough money to pay for it..lol or the tax payers to
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2001
- Location
- Raleigh, NC
yes the goverment has enough money to buy whatever computers they want to launch nukes but they dont. more than likely they are either old dec alpha or cray machines. in mission critical apps they never run new hardware. NASA still uses 8086 cpus on the space shuttle in a triple redundant flight system. They went so far as to buy up a large amount of surplus computers just for the cpus not even 2 years ago so theyd have spare parts.
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2002
cool... these look very nice
- Joined
- May 23, 2004
Agallion said:
WRONG the computers they use are no diffrent then the ones they used back in the 70's, NASA and other gov't organaztions are constantly scouring ebay and other places for legacy parts to keep their systems operational.
sorry but it takes alot more cpu power to run Far Cry then it does to launch a nuke.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2004
- Location
- The Netherlands
Drec said:
yeah, and farcry can take one or more bad pixels...the nuke, however, not surprisingly, can't take a single miscalculation. NASA and gov' puters are built for security and integrity.
for the P4: somebody reached 1600Mhz fsb (400Mhz*4)
Drec said:
This is true.
All NASA deep space computers go through several months of "radiation hardening" to ensure they will not cut out in space. Most use cpu models that predate 386's but some of the newer projects are beginning to take advantage of newer technology.
The problem with faster computers is a greater power drain and greater risk of miscalculation with increased power + radiation.
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2002
- Location
- under the floorboards
Like people have said, there isnt much reason for it. They have been launching nukes since vacum tubes were state of the art. An unstable overlcocked machine at 5.6 would probably be a very poor choice for such an application.
Also, supercomputers rely on massive numbers of cpus. The earth simulator, with over 1,000 cpus would kick a 5.6 p4 to the moon in number crunching performance.
