Not bad. Assuming 10% better IPC, you have me beat (@4.8ghz).

My brother's gone crazy on his. He flattened the IHS, flattened his H100 heat sink, redid the paste on the IHS, and used Indigo Xtreme to connect the H100. It peaks at 63 C in Intel Burn Test at 4.4 GHz. I don't care enough about mine to go that far, but I could probably get a reasonable temperature close to 5 GHz if I did.

I just want to know why the hell I can't get mine past 4.1ghz. I don't know what exactly is killing it (CPU, motherboard, RAM???). The heat doesn't get obscene, so I don't know why it just flips a bit (probably literally) when I go further.

I have heard of people removing the IHS completely to change the TIM under it, I doubt I would ever risk damaging a new CPU like that.

Yeah that's crazy. Ram shouldnt have anything to do with it, if you are overclocking via multiplier. What exactly is happening when you try for 4.2ghz? Computer just instantly freezes? It attempts to boot Windows then restarts? My guess would have to be tempature related- maybe your UEFI has a Thermal Shutdown option and it's set very low?

Maybe you got a chip that won't oc very much.

What's your voltage at? Are you setting a manual voltage or just an offset?

I set it in Asus's tools, and right now it's sitting at 1.1 volts. I believe it's doing offset, although it doesn't tell me.

If I go higher, it will do one of the following:

1. Fail Prime95
2. Cause severe program crashes (like Handbrake can't get through an encode)
3. BSOD

If I go way too far (like 4.4ghz), it'll just outright lock up or BSOD immediately.

I have tried as far as 1.2 volts, and it seems to have no effect on stability, no matter how small the multiplier step is.

I'm running mine with just a 0.01 V offset (I'm doing it all via BIOS, errr UEFI). My brother had huge stability issues with his doing offsets, so he's been setting his max voltage manually.

I will say this, I miss the days of just being able to jack up the FSB and raise the voltage a little bit and not having to worry about anything else.

Mine overclocks to 3.34 stable (last I checked) at like 1.8

You got balls if you really tried 1.8v on your X6.

Nope, 1.3v. I cant' read apparently.

I was kind of curious why Core 0 on the i7-3770K runs so much cooler than the others (I've noticed as much as a 10 C difference in some situations).

Than I looked at the Ivy Bridge die and it became readily apparent...

I want more cores instead.

Why, for your super critical After Effects 1080p project?

Should we tell him that Windows 98 only supports single processors?

No, let him enjoy his new P4 for a while.

Win98SE doesn't support >512mb of RAM either, it'll crash on install. (Unless you edit some files)
I've never used P4s, netburst is a pile of **** and tends to ruin older DOS games. Not only that, but they generate huge amounts of heat and, as such, are noisy as ****. It's really not worth it to use a P4 for anything at all these days, either bite the bullet and downgrade to a PIII, or use something newer.
Pentium III or Core 2+, nothing in between.
Hey wait a second, Pentium 4s only have one core, Alan read up on your processor history more. P4s had HT but never dual cores (Although there was a late series that had a Twin-Die design, but it wasn't really "Dual Core".)

I actually wanted a 6 or 8 core version for running VMs.

Tell us why in your own words.

Please.

In hindsight, it made good sense to use a long pipeline in lieu of the fact Intel had pushed MORE MEGAHERTZ MORE BETTER for so long, but as soon as Core 2 rolled around it instantly became ****. Add to that the gigantic TDP, and the fact that the high clock rates tend to **** with certain older games that rely on certain clocks for certain functions, and Pentium 4s are worthless even as a collectors item or whatever. Oh and the hilarious fact that early P4s used RDRAM, who thought that was a good idea christ. If you for some reason want to build something from that era it's a good idea to jump ship to the "Other side" and build an athlon.

• You believe Netburst was a mistake, but you state that their design decisions make sense in hindsight. Please explain.
• In lieu? What do you mean?
• Why did the release of Core 2 make Netburst a weaker architecture?
• Why does a longer pipeline allow faster clock frequencies? Why does this not apply to newer Intel processors, which are capable of much higher stable clock frequencies than Netburst in spite of having much shorter pipelines?
• What is the performance disadvantage of a longer pipeline?
• The Pentium M used a traditional I-cache, while Netburst used a trace cache, which is an unconventional I-cache with integrated branch prediction. What effect do you think this had on performance?

• The Pentium M and Core Solo were essentially Pentium 3s running at modern clock rates. Do these processors suffer from the same problems as a slower-clocked Netburst processor? What about a 5 GHz overclock on a modern i7?
• What are these "certain functions" upon which older games rely? Be specific.

• At lower clock rates, RDRAM has significant performance benefits over DDR RAM in exchange for a significant price disadvantage. Do you think Intel's decision to use RDRAM was influenced by their desire to recapture the high-end consumer market after the massive success of the Athlon?
• What were the main reasons the Athlon outperformed the Pentium 3?
• Did the Athlon ever actually outperform the Pentium 4? Why or why not? Does the same apply after both platforms started using DDR?

• Is this always true? Are there any situations where a Pentium 4 would be preferable to an Athlon?

Nah.

"I'm sorry. I don't really know, I was just repeating what other people have told me."

Jon`C, it's obvious that your point-by-point dissection of Tibby's post does NOT bother him at all.

I just.. don't want to spend time answering all that ****? It was a quick post about some of my opinions about an old hardware thing, that's all. Once again, and time after Jon'C you're an arrogant buffoon who has an incredible ability to memorize trivial information. That' s cool, you could really enhance the total knowledge of the community like that. But instead of contributing to a discussion you just tell everyone they are wrong, without actually increasing the level of understanding of anyone involved. You're a smart man who's totally worthless to the community because of this. You make big posts, with loads of effort put into them, but in the end it all amounts to "Heh, I'm so smart look at this:". You made that post because you think I, and other people for that matter, what to look good to you. The level of arrogance you show to think that anyone would care about what you think of them is absurd.

E: But I did make this post, So I guess that's a point for you.

EE: Oh god, I'm derailing the thread. I apologize.

Who are you kidding, Tibby? You can't answer those questions.

No, Tibby.

You memorize trivial information: P4s have a long pipeline. P4s have higher clock rates than Athlons. P4s generate a lot of heat. This is trivial information, meaning "of little value." You memorize these facts, but you don't understand what they really mean.

On the other hand, I understand microarchitectures quite well. I don't need to memorize trivia about them.

You can pretend to understand microarchitectures all you want. Just be a little bit more careful about telling someone he needs to read more about it, because you don't know half as much as you think you do, and those of us who actually have done the readings are going to be eager to tell the world why your posting is terrible.

Yeah, pretty much looks like Tibby perused the Wikipedia article on NetBurst and regurgitated things he thought sounded important.

I'm going to go with regurgitating what some "power users" wrote on reddit or SA or some other place.

You guys are a little tough on Tibby at times.

Pentium4's do have a really bad reputation. I'd hate for Jon'C to nitpick at this post because I'm about to make a generalization that covers a period of about 5 years, but I never owned one during that 'era' because they were a bad value. The comparable performing AMD cpu cost considerably less. And the early P4's that made use of RDRAM inflated the cost of an Intel system even more.

Although AMD and Intel each took the performance crown at various times during the P4 era, I think part of the reason Pentium4's are percieved as being poor performers is because Athlon/XP/64's managed to achieve the same performance at much lower clockspeeds. I don't pretend to understand the architectural differences, but it makes AMD cpu's appear to be much more efficient.

Well, Tibby did, and that's the problem. What's something you know a lot about? What's your job or hobby that you're passionate about? Imagine someone else coming along, with trivial knowledge of that field, spouting off understanding with high confidence and arrogance but lacking in substance. It's offensive to people who actually know what they're talking about.

There's nothing wrong with not knowing. But pretending to know when you don't, especially when you know you don't, isn't good.

You see though, this was the internet. Based on layman's research (Reading wiki, yeah you got me there.) and some personal experience (of P4s literally melting.). So I stated my opinions, if you know more then me, or think I'm wrong, they by all means say so and explain why, I'll come out of it more informed, and so will other members of the community. In the end, one person being wrong enhances the community as a whole by being corrected. What got me was that you didn't say why I was wrong, or enhanced my knowledge of anything, you simply stated I was wrong and left it at that. Which is, in the end, perfectly fine because this the internet, where everything is stupid.

No, Tibby, not everything on the internet is stupid. It's just that most of the people on it are stupid.

Exactly.

You're one of them.

Let me guess, Tiberium Empire's response will be that you are too? Does somebody have to tell either of you to go sit in the corner and count to 1000?

I wonder if Reverend Jones is Canadian.