View Full Version : Can accidental overclocking damage a computer horribly?
03-05-2003, 02:35 AM
I was messing with my BIOS settings and accidently set my multipliers WAY TOOO HIGH and when my system reset, it would not boot. It reset about 4 times before i was able to shut it off and reset the BIOS. But now, the system seems a lil buggy..... It restarts without warning such as when multitasking heavily or closing multiple program windows.... it most recently crashed after IE crashed... IE actually has been really whacky on all systems I've worked on since IE SP1 came out... -.-"
But could that temporary max overclock have screwed really badly anything???? :thumbsdow
oh yah, i also set my CAS latency back up from 2 to 2.5 and it seems to have made my system work just a tad bit better... I can actually open multiple windows and run Animatrix before it crashes out... I'm running 512MB PC2700 Mushkin. Latency should be 2.5 or 2?
03-05-2003, 02:52 AM
1) Overclocking can destroy a computer. It can also damage components. This usually only occurs if your fiddling with voltages, undergoing voltage mods, or just don't have sufficent cooling on the cpu. Its pretty rare as long as you aren't soldering things...or removing the override jumpers. :D
2) If you mess up your fsb and multipliers, flash the bios when the system's off. It'll reset everything to default settings. Then start back up from where you last left off.
I doubt you screwed up the system, but I'd set it back to defaults before trying to improve any scores. Start from 100% stability before playing too much :).
03-05-2003, 03:28 AM
for a moment there, I thought I seriously F'd my system..... :eek:
But can u look @ these settings and tell me if anything looks terribly wrong?
RAM Timing: 5-2-2-2-2
FSB: 133x2 (266MHz)
Voltage: All Default
CPU Ratio: Default
AutoDetect DIMM/PCI Clk: Enabled
Spread Spectrum: Disabled (I disabled this just now... my system works a tad bit better)
Those are I believe, the things giving me the most trouble. I'm running a Soyo DRagon Ultra KT400 Platinum w/ 512MB Mushking DDR PC2700. Are those settings too aggressive for this memory package?
Btw, with everything on SPD, my RAM bandwidth is only 2000+/- 2MB/s. By using manual settings for everything, I managed to get it up to 2014MB/s. So yeah.... i think my system is still underclocked. =( But I tried upping it and it didn't help.. just made things not boot.
03-05-2003, 03:32 AM
Set the ram to spd. Verify stability. Lower the ram timings a bit at a time until your sure they won't effect stability.
Don't become obsessed with ram bandwidth and benchmarks. Thats a road that will only lead you to ruin. Get the computer running stable first, then worry about tweaking your performance.
03-05-2003, 03:38 AM
I had it stable already. =D That's why I decided to remove my SPD crutch and start trying "my own legs" for a change... hehehee. But isn't that bandwidth just a tad bit low?
03-05-2003, 05:27 AM
5-2-2-2-2 is quite low (fast). try 6-3-3-3-3 and see if that doesn't improve things, and work from there.
on ething to mention: no-one can tell you what is too high or too low for your system. every system (even using identical brand boards with identical chipsets) is different due to the microscopic innacuracies when dealing with microelectronic equipment.
test settings for yourself, and be your own judge of their stability. i've overclocked hundreds of systems, and no two ever gave me the same settings with the same results. that's just the way it is.
03-05-2003, 05:53 AM
yes yes, it seems to be very stable now. I think my issue was the spread spectrum mode.
Are u familiar with spread spectrum and autodetect DIMM/PCI clk? Those deal with something along the lines of reducing the em emmissions from the CPU and the bus but in doing so, it can also cause instability when overclocking. I disabled just the Spread Spectrum mode and my system seems to have gone back to normal.
And even with those low settings, my bandwidth is only 2014MB/s.... nowhere near the 2700MB/s. Any ideas?
03-05-2003, 10:46 AM
spread spectrum is only useful when trying to test the effects of EM on a system. i still have no idea as to why manufacturers put that kind of stuff on a motherboard when no-one in their right mind would ever enable it.
i seem to recall you have a via kt400 board? if that's the case, make sure you have the latest hyperion drivers from www.viaarena.com insatlled on your system before running any benchmarks.
03-05-2003, 11:51 AM
That score is fine for PC2700. Stop worrying, you'll give yourself a heart attack :).
If 5-2-2-2-2 isn't stable, try raising the latencies of the ras timings first. Cas usually makes the largest difference, so try and keep it at 2 if possible. Fiddle until you get the lowest ram score possible out of the dimms.
Also realize, your running your ram at 133x2, or 266. PC2700 DDR is rated at 333 megahertz. (or 166x2) You might want to consider changing the ram multiplier (to 4:5 I think) and reseting the memory timings to spd. (Don't set the multiplier with your current ram settings, it'll lockup/freeze the computer)
If you compare your scores with theoretical....
PC2100 is 133x2 (266) DDR and is rated at 2.1 gigs/sec and your at around 2.0 gigs/sec, thats well without the very green/excellent bandwidth margins.
03-06-2003, 12:40 AM
Thanks for the nfo. My system is already running the RAM @ 166MHz x 2 for DDR333. The FSB is 133 x 2 for 266MHz. I'm using 5-2-2-2-2.
I've only been able to get the bandwidth as high as 2018MB/s.
But here's my question:
What is queue depth for?
What is burst length for?
03-06-2003, 01:34 AM
This should keep you busy until I find answers to your specific questions.
(Its a bios guide)
03-06-2003, 01:57 AM
lol, that's been my main resource for a long while. But they don't have those two listed... that's why I'm asking all you folk. :thumbsup:
01-14-2006, 01:00 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.
vBulletin v3.0.5, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.