• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Overclocking a Core Duo?

B

Bona Fide

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
2,382
I ordered an Inspiron laptop with a 2GHz Core Duo processor, and I wanted to know if there was any way to overclock and/or tweak with it. Is it possible?
 
Overclocking a laptop involves physical modifications to the internals. No BIOS or Clockgen overclocking there. If you do it, you will most certainly void your warranty (since Dell will be able to tell in an instant that you've been overclocking).

Really, why overclock? You have the undisputed fastest processor on the planet (at least at stock speeds). That thing will run circles around any "super xtreme edition" offering of both AMD and Intel. I'd be the happiest man on the planet if I had that processor.
 
InorganicMatter said:
Really, why overclock? You have the undisputed fastest processor on the planet (at least at stock speeds). That thing will run circles around any "super xtreme edition" offering of both AMD and Intel. I'd be the happiest man on the planet if I had that processor.
Click to expand...

Really? I thought it was comparable to an X2 3800+ in terms of processing power. If it's superior to anything currently offered by Intel or AMD, then I won't be overclocking it :D
 
The 4600+ and above are faster than the 2GHz Core Duo (and the current Core Duos dont run x86-64 programs, so the X2's are going to be useful longer), but, they also take a lot more power and cost more. The Core Duo has pretty good power/performance, just unfortunate that it has a really weak presence on the desktop in the US.
 
robberbaron said:
The 4600+ and above are faster than the 2GHz Core Duo (and the current Core Duos dont run x86-64 programs, so the X2's are going to be useful longer), but, they also take a lot more power and cost more. The Core Duo has pretty good power/performance, just unfortunate that it has a really weak presence on the desktop in the US.
Click to expand...
Oh please, don't try the old "64 bit" argument. That is marketing and nothing more. When someone says "64 bit," two things come to my mind: the miserable-failure-of-an-OS known as Windws XP x64, and Vista which brings just about all hardware on the market to it's knees.

The Core Duo is the fastest line out there right now, there is no need to overclock.
 
InorganicMatter said:
Oh please, don't try the old "64 bit" argument. That is marketing and nothing more. When someone says "64 bit," two things come to my mind: the miserable-failure-of-an-OS known as Windws XP x64, and Vista which brings just about all hardware on the market to it's knees.

The Core Duo is the fastest line out there right now, there is no need to overclock.
Click to expand...

I would have to agree with him. 64bit is a marketing scheme for right now. Nothing really supports it that well(notice I put "that well"). It wont be a big deal until Vista comes and about 6 months after that. Thats when 64bit is going to take off as more and more companies and customers migrate to Vista. Core Duo is a very good processor and saying AMD is better is ridicolous. They are about even if not better than AMD offering. To bad its really only a laptop processor. I know of only one desktop board for Core Duo and not even sure if its in the US yet... If it was a mainstream desktop processor I wouldnt doubt that it would take of with a huge bang.
 
While I may agree that Core Duo is a helluva processor, I dont really see it being the most powerful cpu out there. The only thing that it has is two cores, but when you look at each core individually, its just slightly more powerful than the equivalent PM. And we know that the PM @ 2.26GHz (which is just about as powerful as a 2.0 CD) is not the most powerful cpu out there.
 
InorganicMatter said:
Oh please, don't try the old "64 bit" argument. That is marketing and nothing more. When someone says "64 bit," two things come to my mind: the miserable-failure-of-an-OS known as Windws XP x64, and Vista which brings just about all hardware on the market to it's knees.

The Core Duo is the fastest line out there right now, there is no need to overclock.
Click to expand...

it is a viable argument actually

when he says it will be useful longer, maybe that means he might recycle it in a few years by turning it into a server or something. You know, Windows isn't the only OS with a 64-bit version. Here's a hint - there's one that starts with a "L" that runs on pretty much any chip, which has been headed 64-bit for awhile.

So yes, it will be useful
 
If this were a conroe, I'd agree, but it's a 2.0GHz Yonah. It does win the price/performance battle, by a longshot for a stock chip, but it is by no means the fastest chip on the available market. Sorry. Please pass the hookah, work is boring today.
 
I only got one Question . Why does AMD sell so many X2 in the lower speed bin? So that it can be O/C to perform = with the X2 FX60's . is this not true? So if you O/C a yonah to Fx60 speeds the yonah wins 50%+ the benchmarks. You amders always say stock speed is what counts . Yet most that buy retail x2's O/C them . Its a double standard that you present your arguments with . Any reasonable person can clearly see that.
 
hennessy1 said:
While I may agree that Core Duo is a helluva processor, I dont really see it being the most powerful cpu out there. The only thing that it has is two cores, but when you look at each core individually, its just slightly more powerful than the equivalent PM. And we know that the PM @ 2.26GHz (which is just about as powerful as a 2.0 CD) is not the most powerful cpu out there.
Click to expand...

IT"S A MOBILE PROCESSOR!!!!!!!!! Sorry, but I'm getting tired of this. Show me 1 single laptop proc that competes with this chip. The simple fact that it is competitive with desktop procs is just icing on the cake.
 
Poncho said:
IT"S A MOBILE PROCESSOR!!!!!!!!! Sorry, but I'm getting tired of this. Show me 1 single laptop proc that competes with this chip. The simple fact that it is competitive with desktop procs is just icing on the cake.
Click to expand...

I don't get your point. Isn't it a good thing that it is better than all CPUs?
 
Bona Fide said:
I don't get your point. Isn't it a good thing that it is better than all CPUs?
Click to expand...

It's not "better" than all CPUs. Just like AMD was/is, it has it's strengths and weakness. It will COMPETE with desktops.... doesn't mean that it's better. I wish everybody would just wait for conroe.... since that one WILL BE better than all CPUs. :D
 
ndruw said:
it is a viable argument actually

when he says it will be useful longer, maybe that means he might recycle it in a few years by turning it into a server or something. You know, Windows isn't the only OS with a 64-bit version. Here's a hint - there's one that starts with a "L" that runs on pretty much any chip, which has been headed 64-bit for awhile.

So yes, it will be useful
Click to expand...
Just a guess on my part, but judging by the way this guy talks, I don't see him using Linux any time soon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top