On 06 Feb 2004 16:36:12 GMT, LASERandDVDfan wrote:
The real question is "why would you want to?". Overclocking is just like
running a car's engine past the redline. Sure it'll go a little (very
little)
faster, but at what cost?

The idea of overclocking is that processors are usually rated very
conservatively.

In the case of AthlonXP processors, they are considered an overclocker's dream
because they typically have a lot of overclocking headroom, especially the
Thorougbred B core and particularly the Barton core.

After you've unlocked the CPU, you can overclock something like an AthlonXP
2500+ with the Barton core and 512Kb cache to run at close to 3000+ levels
without difficulty or problems. This is because these two processors have the
same core, they're just rated differently on the markings.

I have yet to see a processor that could run reliably at 20% over rated
bus speed. Most will have horrible reliability at less than a 5% increase.
I'd rather just wait 4 months for CPU at the faster speed to come down in
price.

Wanna a P3-500 over clocked to 525 mhz?

I'd rather just run with a p4-1600.


Of course, this does not negate the fact that there is a risk when you do
overclock something. Also instabilities can arise not just from the processor,
but also from the bus and the components that are connected to it. For
instance, if you push the bus up higher beyond the capabilities of the RAM, you
can have instability problems arise out of the memory. - Reinhart

Did you get a chance to compare LCD & Plasma when playing xbox of ps2
games?

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 09:05:38 -0700 (MST), (Ken G.)
wrote:


On to the topic matter .
I also repair and mostly newer stuff for a salvage buyer . I have had
the chance to sit down in my home with both plasma and LCD tv sets of
about 37 inch screens . They look nice but you cant get as ``real`` of
picture from them as you can from a CRT . The plasma is better at
viewing from an angle .
The LCD set ( Sharp Aquos ) had a stunning picture on new brodcasts but
totaly horrible picture on old video or black & white shows very blury &
pixely . The LCD also was bad at off center viewing angles . The picture
in this was so bright it was impossible to watch it in a low light room
, turning down the contrast e.t.c. was no good .. could not get the
bright whites down without getting the whole picture to dark . The
plasma was much better at finding a mellow picture for a darker room .

Sarah ... no i dont have any video games but i can tell you they would
do just great on both type tv sets .

After you've unlocked the CPU, you can overclock something like an AthlonXP
2500+ with the Barton core and 512Kb cache to run at close to 3000+ levels
without difficulty or problems. This is because these two processors have
the
same core, they're just rated differently on the markings.

I have yet to see a processor that could run reliably at 20% over rated
bus speed. Most will have horrible reliability at less than a 5% increase.
I'd rather just wait 4 months for CPU at the faster speed to come down in
price.

That's the other thing about the AthlonXP processors. Their model numbering
system is rather deceptive.

The model number 2500+ means that the processor is equivalent in power to a
Pentium4 running at a clock of 2500 MHz. The 3000+ means equivalent to a P4
running at a clock of 3000. This is marketing, but that's how AMD does it.

The AthlonXP 2500+ runs at a clock speed of 1833 MHz while the 3000+ runs at a
clock speed of 2167 Mhz. To get a 2500+ Barton to run at 3000+ Barton levels
wouldn't take much and the system will be rock solid.

Wanna a P3-500 over clocked to 525 mhz?

I'd rather just run with a p4-1600.

I don't see how this argument is fair.

PentiumIII and Pentium4 are two different generation processors.

I am talking about two processors within the same generation based on the exact
same core made under the same 0.13 micron process using the same amount of L2
cache running at the exact same bus speed. The only difference are the
multiplier settings that are locked in on the two different models.

I prefer Athlons because they are very efficient processors which are also very
reliable and don't cost an arm and a leg to buy.

The Pentium4 is a good processor, but it's not very efficient with it's
ridiculously long pipeline, which is compensated by using a very high clock
speed.

This is why the numbering scheme for the AthlonXP is the way it is. It doesn't
have to run at as high a clock speed to have similar performance to a Pentium4,
but most people have a misconception that a higher clock speed always equals a
faster processor. - Reinhart

"Ken G." wrote in message
...
Sarah ... no i dont have any video games but i can tell you they would
do just great on both type tv sets .


I've seen them on both, they look great, I've also seen severe screen burn
from video games on plasma, I'm sure the newer ones are better about this,
they cost thousands of dollars and burn is not repairable so I wouldn't try
though.

First off very well said ......


How can his stuff be well said?

Quite a few of his points were spawned from idiocy. - Reinhart

Did you get a chance to compare LCD & Plasma when playing xbox of ps2
games?

They both may look okay.

The LCD might have trouble because it's refresh is still not up to snuff, IMO,
with exception to LCD projectors.

Plasma displays, on the other hand, are more perceptible to burn-in.

Overall, I still recommend direct view sets for videogame playing.

All current generation consoles, the GameCube, PlayStation 2, and X-Box have
the capability of working with component video. However, you have to order the
component patch cable for the GameCube directly from Nintendo, at least for a
"licensed accessory." - Reinhart