Pentium 4 631 Overclocked to 8 GHz

Andreas writes "There are always those who are willing to take things one step further than others. A group of guys known as OC Team Italy is one of them. They recently pushed an Intel Pentium 4 631 to over 8000MHz using an ASUS P5B with modified voltage regulation and liquid nitrogen. Overclocking is cool and all, but this extends beyond what some would perhaps call useful. Still a milestone though."

Sheesh...

[__aaclcg7560]

All the trouble those Italians do to cook sausage without burning it.

Re:

[644bd346996]

I think the whole cooking aspect of P4s is way under-explored. Sure, everybody knows you can cook an egg with one, but has anybody used one to heat a wok, for example? Silicon stir fry! On a more realistic note, those processors could be great for sous-vide [wikipedia.org] cooking if they are water cooled.

Re:

[gbulmash]

Sous-vide, IIRC, requires a consistent, controlled temperature. You'd definitely need to write a system monitor that keeps the processor at a specific load (not above, not below) so you could maintain that perfect cooking temperature.

- Greg

BeOS

[ProfessionalCookie]

'Course you'll want to run BeOS so you can keep an eye on is_computer_on_fire()

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always had a strange desire to see someone freebase off a P4...

direct link to photos of setup

[Bananatree3]

To save thoughs who just want to see the setup pictures [xtremesystems.org]

photo mirror

[Bananatree3]

setup1 [imageshack.us]

setup2 [imageshack.us]

Thermometer at -192 deg.C [imageshack.us]

photo of screen at 8000.7MHz [imageshack.us]

CPU-Z verified [imageshack.us]

Why no benchmarks?

[XO]

Why are there no useful benchmarks? Danger of cooling system dying off?

Re:Why no benchmarks?

[gad_zuki!]

Because a P4 at 8ghz benches close to an athlon at 2.

Re:

[bruno.fatia]

So if a P4 @ 8.0GHz benches close to an Athlon at 2.0GHz, and an Athlon at 4.0GHz would maybe get close to a Core 2 Duo at 2.0GHz, that means we'd need a 16.0GHz P4 to beat a Core 2 Duo? Sweet!

Re:direct link to photos of setup

[ArcherB]

All that smoke in a couple of those pictures... Was that from the nitrogen or that pack of Camels sitting there?

Re:

[shaitand]

I don't think there is anyone over the age of 5 in the United States who isn't aware of the negative health problems related to smoking. Perhaps there was an issue once long ago with people not being aware of the dangers (like the 50's?) but in modern times there is more false information and overblown statistics in the anti-smoking campaign.

Re:

[ctr2sprt]

Contains the phrase (in Italian), ``Il fumo uccide.'' Translated into English, that reads, ``Smoking kills.'' Can you imagine something that bold and straightforward being printed on a carton sold in the U.S.?

Yes. Each pack of cigarettes has one of several warnings on it [cdc.gov], one of which is "Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, and May Complicate Pregnancy." That's quite straightforward and bold, in my opinion.

Re:"Smoking kills"

[gbulmash]

I like the Canadian warnings [smoke-free.ca] that come with photos, like impotence (4th down on this page [smoke-free.ca]). They're inventive. And, according to CNN [cnn.com], they're effective. Some of them (particularly the mouth diseases one, 8th from top) are sort of gross, though.

- Greg

Re:

[mightyQuin]

I am on week 13 of quitting smoking - that's 13 weeks without a single drag *sigh* it is not easy.

Re:

[dangitman]

That's nothing. Check out these Australian cigarette packets.

Re:

[micknz]

That's nothing. Check out these Australian cigarette packets.

Indeed, we here in NZ are getting those images on packets soon. I can't see it discouraging existing smokers much however.. Maybe if they printed photos of our Prime minister [pbs.org], hell, I'd quit.

Urg - link mangled

[dangitman]

I think the tobacco industry destroyed my link, those sneaky bastards.

Check out these Australian cigarette packets [wikipedia.org].

Re:

[oraclese]

If I was cooling a CPU with a shoddy setup like that and using a coolant that could freeze and shatter my skin, I'd probably be a bit nervous, too (see ash tray on right hand side of first pic).

Just in Time!

[LiquidCoooled]

Thats just in time!

Vista is released in a couple of days, we need at least one machine up to spec.

Re:Just in Time!

[GweeDo]

Naw, they used the integrated video and lost all Aero Glass features :(

Re:Just in Time!

[Anonymous Coward]

*sigh* You and your facts. What do you think this is, Digg?

Re:

[LiquidCoooled]

Digg?
You mean Duck!
That place has comment moderation down to an art!
One person spams, he gets modded down, but them the 400 replies all telling him he is being blocked are left modded up (because users would see it as a slight and have an argument about why they got downmodded and that will get upmodded and eventually you get to the next actual reply of something and some other fucker jumps in the way and it all starts again.

Re:Just in Time!

[Copid]

I'm running Vista on my 1.8 GHz dual core AMD Turion 64 Acer Ferrari 1000 with 1.75 GB of RAM and a 256 MB ATI Radeon right now.

What, that old thing?

The problem with high clock is not just heat ...

[vlad_petric]

It's also how fast your circuits can switch, and how fast the signal can travel on the wires. The execution core of a Pentium 4 also happens to be double-pumped (i.e., it performs operations on both edges of the clock signal). Essentially, those ALUs would be switching at 16GHz ... I, personally, take this with a grain of salt.

Re:The problem with high clock is not just heat ..

[ettlz]

Indeed. Light travels just under 2 centimetres in the 16 GHz period. The Pentium 4 core is not much smaller than this... it seems like they're pushing their luck on order-of-magnitude estimates alone.

Re:The problem with high clock is not just heat ..

[ettlz]

f = 16 GHz = 16 × 10^9 1/s gives a period t = 1/f = 0.0625 × 10^(–9) s. Distance x = ct = 3.00 × 10^8 m/s × 0.0625 × 10^(–9) s = 0.019 m. But yes, a THz chip would be seriously up-fucked.

Re:The problem with high clock is not just heat ..

[product byproduct]

Obligatory Google Calculator link [google.com]

Re:

[suv4x4]

Obligatory Google Calculator link

Yup.. I was wrong in the end, not him. Thus proving once more than moderators mod you up if you sound right, although you may be wrong. The original poster got modded down... Ain't that ironic :P

Of course maybe it'll be regulated out in time as people hit the clarification posts.

Re:

[HappyEngineer]

FWIW, the speed of light in a vacuum isn't "more or less 3E8". It's precisely 299792458 m/s. The meter is actually defined as the distance light travels in 1/299792458 seconds.

Re:

[buswolley]

what! Not precisely 299792458.7?

Re:

[Bromskloss]

So: yea, sorry to break it for you, but a 16 THz chip maybe will never be possible (unless it's super tiny, I guess...).

Or asynchronous in some way, perhaps.

this is just not true!

[elgatozorbas]

lamba=speed/frequency=3e8/16e9=1.8e-2

In other words, GP was right. In fact, this is just the speed of light in vacuum. In practice the waves propagate in a medium with a higher dielectric constant (epsilon_r>1), and therefore the wavelength will be even lower. Moreover, even when circuit dimensions are lamba/10, transmission line effects will come info play...

Re:

[dsanfte]

He probably threw in c as 300,000km/s instead of 300,000,000m/s. That happens a lot, and results in order-of-magnitude errors.

Re:

[Agripa]

Actually it travels around 18.7 meters in that 16GHz period. It'd travel just under 2 cm for a 16 THz chip.

Just off the top of my head 2 meters is about 146 MHz in free space so I believe you are off by a factor of 10^3. Dusting off my HP48 shows that 16 GHz has a wavelength of about 18.7 millimeters. I am used to doing these calculations based on wavelength for RF design but using period gives the same results. 16 GHz is 62.5 picoseconds which again yields 18.7 millimeters at the speed of light.

SiO2 has

Re:

[Ford Prefect]

How fast electrical signals travel through the wires is depending on the material the wires are made of. Light has nothing to do with it.

While light itself may not have anything to do with it, the speed of light c most definitely has. It's the upper speed limit for, well, everything. Including propagation of signals.

Re:

[FLAGGR]

Yep, funny stuff happens when you try to move things faster than the speed of light. Gotta start talking about [...] Einstien's theory of relativity

I wouldn't consider "it's impossible" funny stuff. You either get a divide by zero or a divide by an imaginary number.

Re:The problem with high clock is not just heat ..

[Glonoinha]

Actually there is a way to get around the whole 'speed of light' issue - don't use light.
Yea, the 'photonic computer' guys didn't think that one all the way through, did they?

Use electricity instead, have it run on little traces cut in silicon like the old days, but then seal the silicon in a dark ceramic casing so no light gets in, and put the whole thing in a computer case WITHOUT the clear panels - have to keep out the light.

Light is fast, no doubt, but it is measurably fast (186,000 miles per second, as I recall) - but regular electricity running in the dark across wires (or traces on silicon) ... now that is 'hauling ass fast', also known as immeasurably fast. When you turn on a light by flipping a switch - the light takes a measurable amount of time to get to you, but when does the light actually turn on? The instant you flip that switch - ahhh, the magic of electricity running at immeasurable speeds over wire.

Think about it - every scientist in the past century has measured the speed of light - but how many have been able to measure the speed of electricity in a wire?
None?
Bingo!

And what kind of tools do they use to measure the speed of light?
Electronic tools made with electricity running on wires?
Bingo!

Re:

[NixieBunny]

I know you're being silly, but I've measured both. I found that electricity on a printed circuit board (I know, not technically a wire) is 2 nanoseconds/foot, which is half as fast as light in air. Most coaxial cables' velocity factor is rated at about 70% of the speed of light.

Measuring the speed of light to 1% accuracy with junk-drawer parts and Ebay bargain istruments is not trivial, but it can be done.

Re:

[FST777]

More than just my physics, I can tell you that...

It's still amazing how much you learn by being corrected. The beer will have washed away all that by the morning, but still...

Re:The problem with high clock is not just heat ..

[Tim C]

The speed of light in a vacuum (c) is the absolute maximum speed at which information can travel. It doesn't matter how much you cool the chip or what materials you make it out of, given our current understanding of physics* you can't push anything through it faster than 3*10**8 m/s. That gives you an absolute cannot-be-bettered upper limit for the distance that your signal can move in one cycle.

(* which might be wrong, but no-one's managed to prove it wrong yet)

*Light* has nothing to do with it, it's relativity and the *speed* of light in a vacuum that's important.

Re:

[suv4x4]

The speed of light in a vacuum (c) is the absolute maximum speed at which information can travel. It doesn't matter how much you cool the chip or what materials you make it out of, given our current understanding of physics* you can't push anything through it faster than 3*10**8 m/s.

I wonder though. If 8 GHz (in two steps effectively 16 GHz) is bordering on impossible due to lightspeed... why was Intel claiming to have 10 GHz chips back then?

And in the end, they didn't produce them due to various issues, li

Re:

[norton_I]

Light has everything to do with it. Light is a wave in the elctromagnetic field, changes at which propogate at c in a vacuum. Signals travel down "wires" at somewhat less than c (typically 65-80% * c), dependant on the dielectric constant of the insulator around the wire as well as the geometry of the conductor. In general, the electrons move much slower than this, with instantaneous velocities of a small fraction of c and drift velocities on the order of a few cm/s.

Re:The problem with high clock is not just heat ..

[Manchot]

The "speed of light," by definition, is the speed at which all electric fields propagate (not just optical ones). Even though the wire is treated as an object with constant voltage on it, physically, the electric field which creates that voltage is outside of the wire. In fact, you'll find that as long as the conductance of the wire is sufficiently high, it has little effect on the speed of signal propagation. This is because at the frequencies being discussed, the wires behave more like transmission lines than the ideal, lumped-element model used in circuit analysis.

What's actually more important to the propagation speed is the permittivity and permeability of the dielectric (insulator) surrounding the wire. As it turns out, the speed of signal propagation is identically equal to the speed of light in the dielectric medium (not by coincidence, of course). I may be wrong about this, but I believe that modern processors still use undoped silicon as the interconnect dielectric medium, which means that the signal propagation speed is c/3.4.

Re:The problem with high clock is not just heat ..

[ChrisMaple]

The interconnect dielectric is usually silicon dioxide, with a relative dielectric constant of 3.9. This puts the propagation speed at about c/2.

Re:

[fatboy]

How fast electrical signals travel through the wires is depending on the material the wires are made of.

Actually, the velocity of propagation [wikipedia.org] equals the reciprocal of the square root of the dielectric constant of the material through which that signal passes.

Re:

[ChrisMaple]

Speed of light limitation is a problem. I've read that in the P4, Intel had pipeline stages that did nothing but compensate for propagation delay across the chip.

Re:The problem with high clock is not just heat ..

[indigest]

The extreme cooling they are doing is not just for removing the heat generated by the chip. As temperature decreases, the mobility of charge carriers increases, allowing for a faster circuit. In fact, if they were to run a supercooled chip at the nominal clock frequency, they would have hold time violations and the chip would not work. In other words, the data would propagate so quickly that it would corrupt the previous piece of data.

Re:

[fossa]

As I understand, semiconductor conductivity is dominated by the number of charge carriers, not by their mobility (as in metals), and the number of charge carriers generally decreases with temperature due to lack of thermal exitation. Does this becomes unimportant when doping is used to control the number of charge carriers? And either way, isn't the speed of transmission fairly constant?

Re:

[CTho9305]

In fact, if they were to run a supercooled chip at the nominal clock frequency, they would have hold time violations and the chip would not work. In other words, the data would propagate so quickly that it would corrupt the previous piece of data.

That's not necessarily true - it's only the case if the logic paths speed up more than the clock paths. You get a hold time violation if one flip flop launches its data, the data gets through the logic, and arrives at the capturing flip flop before (or too soon af

Re:The problem with high clock is not just heat ..

[jmv]

Actually, I believe they removed the double-pumped ALU from Prescott and later to allow for even higher clock rates.

Overclocking is so 2001...

[Anonymous Coward]

Get with it guys, now it is about making silent fanless but powerful systems....

Not creating a CPU that sucks down 300W+, has one core and generally sucks.

Re:

[__aaqvdr516]

Silent. Fanless. Oil Filled.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/01/09/strip_out_t he_fans/ [tomshardware.com]

I appreciate what these OC'ers are able to accomplish. Though their cooling system is not a viable solution for every day computing, I for one am amazed they've achieved this level of OC.

Hurmph.

[RyoShin]

Overclocking is cool and all, but [8Ghz] extends beyond what some would perhaps call useful.

Come back in a decade or two and trying saying that. :)

Re:Hurmph.

[Tumbleweed]

>> Overclocking is cool and all, but [8Ghz] extends beyond what some would perhaps call useful.

> Come back in a decade or two and trying saying that. :)

Oh, I'm sure noone would ever need more than 8gHz...

Re:

[budgenator]

I'm torn between saying "Please stop the insanity" and "MUAHAHAHAH"

Re:

[Tumbleweed]

ScottyH wins!

And whoever moderated my joke as 'Interesting' must be smoking crack. Geez.

Re:

[Tumbleweed]

> I'm guessing you were modded 'interesting' so that you would receive a karma bonus - +1 Funny does nothing to your karma.

Wow, I *really* hope people aren't moderating based on that kind of idea. The whole system is designed to make it possible for one to give weighting to funny things if you want to or not, and if people are trying to do 'karmic justice' this way, it's only going to screw up the system. If something's funny, mod it as funny, and don't try to help someone's karma. Karma will take care o

Re:

[Tumbleweed]

Yep, 640KB and 8gHz. That'd make for an interesting machine. And it could be upgraded to TWO floppies (one 5.25" and one 3.5", of course).

I could fit all that RAM in my L2 cache nowadays with lots of space left over! (just got a Core 2 Duo) Spooky.

Re:

[LotsOfPhil]

Overclocking is cool and all, but [8Ghz] extends beyond what some would perhaps call useful.

Come back in a decade or two and trying saying that. :)

I think they meant that the whole pouring-liquid-nitrogen-on-the-processor thing might not be applicable to most consumers.

Re:

[shaitand]

I don't know if the poster meant that 8ghz wouldn't be useful or that any method of overclocking that requires liquid nitrogen is not useful.

Why not 8 GHz?

[Snowgen]

Is 8000 MHz supposed to sound more impressive than 8 GHz?

I'm just confused as to why it was worded so oddly.

Re:Why not 8 GHz?

[camperdave]

They just didn't want people thinking that they meant 8192MHz, I guess.

Re:Why not 8 GHz?

[Chandon Seldon]

Hz is a SI unit, so it's *always* powers of 10 and *never* powers of 2. The only special case is bits/bytes, which aren't SI units so there's an argument for the bastardized binary SI-esque prefixes.

Re:

[evilbessie]

They have infact already designed and approved (IEC and IEEE) them, it's just that no one uses them really, so they look out of place. Basically the words change to Kibi, Mebi, Gibi, Tebi, Exbi, Zebi and Yobi; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix [wikipedia.org] to signify increases of 2^10 rather than the decimal 10^3. You also add an i so it's GiB or Mib.

But all I thought when I read the story was of the reasoning of turning Mars into a giant space ship, whilst wiping out your own civilisation. "Because it's cool

Re:

[Chandon Seldon]

Yea, and if they had chosen something that people could say without looking like a retard then they might have gotten somewhere. Unfortunately, "I just picked up an extra 512 mebibytes of RAM for my computer" sounds really, really dumb.

I'll stick with my "bytes are not a SI unit, so megabyte can mean 2^20 bytes" argument.

Re:

[Burning1]

Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog: No one enjoys it, and the frog rarely survives.

Re:Why not 8 GHz?

[ToxikFetus]

Maybe they're just trying to avoid HDD manufacturer nomenclature, where 8 GHz actually equals 7451 MHz.

Re:Why not 8 GHz?

[SmlFreshwaterBuffalo]

Personally, I would've gone with 8,000,000,000,000,000 nHz.

"Smoking kills"

[feranick]

Funny the pack of cigarettes with the government mandatory sign: "Il fumo uccide" (smoking kills...) besides the smoking board...

7,6 GHz with Pentium II ?

[What the Frag]

What I'm more curious about is how the frak they managed to get a FSB of 1,5 GHZ on a Pentium II 333 MHZ
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=159352 [x86-secret.com]

Re:

[TheRealMindChild]

The CPU identifier is bullshit. The Pentium II certainly didnt support SSE3, or any SEE for that matter.

Re:

[ThisNukes4u]

In that pic it says that it is capable of MMX, SSE, SSE2, and SSE3. I highly doubt that picture is true, seeing as how PII's only had MMX. Unless CPU-Z makes some assumptions about that by looking at the clock speed.

Almost there!

[arodland]

We were supposed to have those 10GHz Pentium 4s last year. Well, it's a start.

Shortly there after...

[Tmack]

...in its exceedingly fast speed, it developed AI and became aware. It quickly started amassing great stores of knowledge and began solving many previously unsolvable problems of the world, and then suddenly went silent and refused to respond to any further input...

Tm

Re:

[taupin]

After several million years, it printed a single integer: 42.

Re:

[bigtrike]

...in its exceedingly fast speed, it developed AI and became aware. It quickly started amassing great stores of knowledge and began solving many previously unsolvable problems of the world, and then suddenly went silent and refused to respond to any further input...

Tm

Those P4's always overheat at the worst possible time.

They use CPU-Z to monitor. Looks like a cool tool

[viking80]

I notice that they use CPU-Z to monitor this CPU. Seems like a pretty good tool to monitor the CPU. Get a copy here http://www.cpuid.org/ [cpuid.org]

And as a harware engineer: As long as you dont boost the voltage too much (Which these guys prpbably did), you can not damage anything, so go for it.

Re:

[pm]

>> As long as you dont boost the voltage too much (Which these guys prpbably did), you can not damage anything, so go for it.

The thermal stress caused by varying rates of thermal expansion for silicon, the resin underfill and the package puts a a lot of stress of the flip-chip bumps cycling between "room temp" and cryogenic temperatures. I'm not so sure that I'd say this isn't going to damage anything.

There'd like be no problem if you do it a couple of times, but over more thermal cycles, I'm certain

Re:

[joshetc]

I notice that they use CPU-Z to monitor this CPU. Seems like a pretty good tool to monitor the CPU. Get a copy here http://www.cpuid.org/ [cpuid.org]

And as a harware engineer: As long as you dont boost the voltage too much (Which these guys prpbably did), you can not damage anything, so go for it.

Isn't that sort of like going to Lambeau Field [wikipedia.org] and seeing a football and explaining to everyone that its safe to throw it?

Re:They use CPU-Z to monitor. Looks like a cool to

[mrchaotica]

As long as you dont boost the voltage too much (Which these guys prpbably did), you can not damage anything

Sure you can! If the temperature changes too fast (creating differential thermal expansion/contraction) you can physically crack the chip (or a PCB, or whatever).

Fan on the GPU...

[HaloZero]

...the fan on the GPU in the photo with the Fluke thermometer. Why isn't the fan spinning?

nostalgia

[pwizard2]

This brings back the old M&M's marketing phrase, with a twist:

"Pentium melts in your PC, not in your hand"

Pointless.

[Dirtside]

6400 MHz ought to be enough for anybody.

Wrong...

[sterno]

First of all, core 2 duo would be two cores at 3.4Ghz so even in a totally perfect world, you're at best getting a collective 6.8Ghz. Furthermore, it isn't a perfect world. There's a certain amount of overhead in distributing tasks to each processor. Furthermore, the performance is limited based on how well threaded the applications are that you're running. A badly threaded application will likely never be faster than that 3.4Ghz on one core.

Stop comparing GHz !!!

[DrYak]

Pentium 4 is based on a Netburst architecture.
Core 2 duo is derived from a Pentium D architecture (which was itself carried from Pentium3 / Pentium2 / Pentium Pro).

They're completly different animals and definitly not doing the same stuf during 1 cycle.

C2D 6.8Ghz can't be compared to the 8Ghz overclock.

That's also why Intel switched from advertising MHz/GHz to advertising number of cores. Otherwise, newer and faster would have been considered by joe 6-pck because he's been trained to look for the "GHz" an

Re:

[FuturePastNow]

Core 2 duo is derived from a Pentium D architecture

Pentium M, not Pentium D. Which I'm sure is what you meant, but I thought I'd correct it for any more dumbasses like the person you replied to.

Re:

[mrchaotica]

Except that Core 2 Duo is a different architecture than Pentium 4, so that 3.4 Ghz is faster than 3.4 Ghz on a NetBurst would be.

Re:8GHZ and still not as fast

[Buzz_Litebeer]

I think you have a misconception of how dual processor machines work. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:

[joshetc]

In just about all single-threaded synthetic benchmarks a 3.4ghz core2duo would outperform an 8ghz P4 though.

Re:

[lysergic.acid]

are you sure that's how it translates over? just clockspeed * number of cores?

Re:8GHZ and still not as fast

[be-fan]

It's about performance, not MHz. Let's use SPECint as the metric. SPECint_rate scales almost perfectly with both clockspeed and core count. A P4 gets about 6.5 SPECint_rate/GHz/core, while a Core 2 gets about 11.5 SPECint_rate/GHz/core. So an 8 GHz P4 would get a score of 51.68, while a 3.4 GHz Core 2 would get 78.2.

The P4's single-core results would be substantially higher than the Core 2's single-core results, though. Interestingly, it points to what the P4 was originally designed to do: achieve high performance through high clockspeed. If process technology had met Intel's original projections, we'd have 6+ GHz P4s by now that would have been competitive with current Core 2 chips.

Re:

[owlstead]

"... we'd have 6+ GHz P4s by now that would have been competitive with current Core 2 chips."

It probably would come with its own generator and liquid cooling solution as well. Lets build some friendlier chips instead, that still perform well and have nice extra's like virtualization and such. I love this new path these new chips have taken. I sometimes wonder if my computer is actually *on* sometimes, because of the lack of noise. P4, rest in pieces.

Re:

[be-fan]

You're missing the point. If the process technology had progressed as expected, the a fast P4 wouldn't have needed huge amounts of power. Look at Power6. It's about 130-watts at 5 GHz. Which is very good power dissipation considering that it has a ton of hardware (really wide busses, huge caches, massive SMP fabric) that Core 2 doesn't.

The point I'm trying to get across is that the P4's design isn't inherently bad, for a desktop/workstation chip. The problem was that it was designed for process technology t

Re:

[ameoba]

Yeah - if you notice, this system is only running with a 533MHz memory bus. As we all know, the P4 architecture is heavily dependent upon memory bandwidth.

They don't have any benches but I'm pretty sure this is past the point of diminishing returns for core multipliers.

I don't think they meant that.

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

Everyone knows bigger MHZ is still king. It's just scale. How much you can do with the given clock cycle. I think they meant that it is not practical to run a processor at 3x it's normal rating using Liquid N as a coolant. It's only useful for the duration of the Liquid N supply, and that is a small Finite amount of time. Secondly, they overclocked the CPU but not Ram(according to CPUV which showed the ram @ 533 mhz) So we have the old bottleneck situation again...

The real question here is "Does MC Lag during battle?"

Re:

[StikyPad]

Everything lags once it's hit by MC Hawking radiation.

Re:

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Spring time for hitler and germany!

Deustchland is happy and gaaaaaaay!

Re:

[FuturePastNow]

No, it doesn't make sense. Neither does climbing a mountain.

Re:

[DavidHumus]

They have a knob that goes to 11.