Makaveli
Diamond Member
- Feb 8, 2002
- 4,760
- 1,158
- 136
Umm ok.. so my 2.66Ghz Xeon is overclocked by 70% to 4.5Ghz and your 3.2Ghz i7 is similar? 70% overclock would be 5.44Ghz..
Hmm, which overclocks better/has more headroom? 95 watt 2.66Ghz Xeon or 130 watt 3.2Ghz i7?
It is obvious to me, and can be deduced simply with a calculator, which one is stretching the most, and overclocking better..
Staples nor Radioshack near me had a Kill A Watt meter.. Do I really need one? It should be obvious..
When I said that I mean overall ceiling for your overclock.
If you want to look at percentages from your stock speed to mine you are correct.
However my point being all of these chips can hit 4-4.2Ghz and above that you need to start loading up the voltage and you get to a point where the amount of volts requires is not worth the clock speed and heat it generates.
Also if I dropped the multipler on my chip and ran the same 2.66Ghz stock speed do you think my chip will still be pulling 130watts or close to 95 watts?
Interesting finding, my mild 3.44GHz overclock (all I did was bump the BCLK to 150, did not bump any voltage) is actually not stable: I got a blue screen as soon as I ran the Intel Burn Test.
Didn't get any blue screen before that during any gaming session. The test is obviously way more intensive on the CPU.
so I went back to stock speed (3.07GHz) and no more blue screen.
temps never went above 50°C.
without any OC, min temps are between 20°C and 25°C, and I am idling between 24°C and 28°C.
what a huge improvement over the 45nm 130W i7-920.
You will see an improvement and its due to 32nm vs 45nm I noticed the difference right away on my system when I went from a 920 DO to my current cpu.
Last edited: