![]() ![]() We recommend against running a system at these extreme settings in the long run, so as not to cut component lifetime down too much. The test system was based on a Gigabyte GA-965P-DQ6, and reached an amazing 485 MHz FSB speed at stability sufficient for benchmarking. Fire Strike23905,Cinebench R151789,Cinebench R203791.Passmark20689,Geekbench432885. The big gun Gigabyte 3D Galaxy II liquid cooler brought far greater success:3.33 GHz at 417 MHz FSB and 1.52 V!"ĥ00 MHz FSB? Core 2 Duo Overtakes Core 2 Extreme Adding the CNPS9700 LED brought down those temperatures phenomenally, but only got us to 3.15 GHz at 394 MHz FSB and 1.48 V before things once again got too hot. "Using the stock cooler, we were able to reach 3.1 GHz at 387 MHz FSB and 1.45 V using the Intel stock cooler, where increasing the voltage only made the CPU overheat sooner. I can only recommend to you reading these articles:Ĭheap Thrills: Core 2 Duo E6400 Overclocked to 3.33 GHz On stock clocks, my typical score for the multicore bench is around 14,000 with temps peaking around 70-72C. Well, Core 2 Duo are rumored to have a really good overclocking potential. I recently just got the Ryzen 9 5950x, and immediately started benching the CPU on Cinebench R23. 2 threads) the results would have been even more different. I don't know if you can incorporate them, but maybe if it could enable multithreading (eg. But as we progress, and the encode uses higher and slower settings (in comparison), the rest of the PC can handle the flow and it appears the encode then gets more dependant on the CPU which is why the gap in results then becomes more apparent, it becomes a much better test between the different processors and speeds. I am not wanting a gaming machine, but a serviceable text processor able to work with current document standards. The encode is using low (fast) speed encode settings so I would assume here the CPU is not the bottleneck and it's the rest of the PC (board/ram/hard drive) that's struggling to keep up, hence the similar value. Notice the first test is almost the same between mine and yours, even though I'm running 2.4 and you at 3.5. Thanks for posting the screenshots, nice to see the different numbers on the different That's some over-clocking you got going there, I had my old p4 (2.4GHz) clocked at 3GHz for years, it gave me a warm feeling knowing I was getting something for free :) But a 2.4 to 3.5, phew, I'd be scared, I wanna stick mine up to 2.8 or maybe 3.0 but untill I get hold of a decent modern mATX board that actually has some overclocking features I'm stuffed. Anyway, I'm sorry that I made this thread off-topic, but the results really surprised me.No need to apologise, at least it gave us all something to chat about. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |