Has anyone ever tried to see how slow your proccessor will go?
Has anyone ever tried to see how slow your proccessor will go?
i know i like to overclock things but then i decided to see how slow my proccessor would go just for laughs, i got my 2100+ down to 1050Mhz at something like 60FSB.
Originally posted by b-man1
for more slowdown goodness....go into the BIOS and disable all of the cpu/mobo cache memory.
LOL
[align=center]<img src="http://www.statgfx.com/statgfx/folding/?&username=Billygoat(pcabusers)&border=0,255,0&label=255,0,0&header=0,0,255&stats=0,0,0&bgcolor=255,255,0&trans=no&template=fah_original&.jpg" alt="PCA Folding Rules!" />[/align]
i know in my dads comp which used to be mine i had to fit a amd processor which isnt actually compatible with the mobo, i think the mobo went up to a 1900+ and i fitted a 2000+, the mobo says its unknown processor yet it runs at the 1900+ speed. and to my surprise the comp works fine.
this is what made me think about slowing the proccessor down.
this is what made me think about slowing the proccessor down.
-
canton_kid
- Golden Member
- Posts: 1400
- Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2002 5:01 pm
- Contact:
I wonder about running a 2500xp cpu 333fsb at 266fsb instead. I wonder how well or slow that would work?? Hey maybe even a 400fsb at 266fsb??
Seriously, I thought of doing that when I need a new cpu for an older system. I geuss it should work fine as long as the sockets and cpu are compatible. I mean I really hate the thought of buying like a xp2000 266fsb for about $10 less than a 2500xp 333fsb cpu. Even though I only have a 266fsb board now in a case don't mean I won't replace it latter with a 400fsb board, then I got a 266fsb cpu in it.
Kinda like now, I need a new system board I think, so I'll end up with one that supports either 333 or 400 and will still be running a 1700xp in that system. No reall need to replace that cpu, it works fine.
Seriously, I thought of doing that when I need a new cpu for an older system. I geuss it should work fine as long as the sockets and cpu are compatible. I mean I really hate the thought of buying like a xp2000 266fsb for about $10 less than a 2500xp 333fsb cpu. Even though I only have a 266fsb board now in a case don't mean I won't replace it latter with a 400fsb board, then I got a 266fsb cpu in it.
Kinda like now, I need a new system board I think, so I'll end up with one that supports either 333 or 400 and will still be running a 1700xp in that system. No reall need to replace that cpu, it works fine.
Canton_kid
spam bot food!
<A HREF="http://www.auditmypc.com/freescan/antispam.html">Anti-Spam</A>
spam bot food!
<A HREF="http://www.auditmypc.com/freescan/antispam.html">Anti-Spam</A>
-
Karchiveur
- Golden Member
- Posts: 1431
- Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2001 5:09 pm
- Location: Fraserwood, Manitoba, Canada
- Contact:
@ which point would the cpu be the most "stable"? Underclocked? Overclocked? or Stock?
well i think its most stable underclocked, as even when running a AMD at stock it can overheat quite badly, whereas underclocking the processor can keep the temps 10 degrees lower than at stock. in my experience if stock fsb is 133 then runing the proccessor at 100 fsb is best any lower and the temps actually start to rise again, wish someone could explain that one.
-
DnkMax
- Genuine Member
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 12:30 am
- Location: Vancouver,Wa [PDX]
- Contact:
yeah..
Ive done that just under curisoty..
Ive got my 1.4 to run at 1050mhz too.
I put the CPu frequency at 100 and ram frequency at 100 iit went down quick.
saved tyhe changes then lagged to all hell..
Ive got my 1.4 to run at 1050mhz too.
I put the CPu frequency at 100 and ram frequency at 100 iit went down quick.
saved tyhe changes then lagged to all hell..
Yeah [PDX]Max