Overclocking is something you have to do intelligently, if its to be used in any application requiring long term stability. You have to limit your overclock to the point of total stability when video editing, whereas if you're playing games and dont mind an occasional crash you can push it farther. My AMD 1.4 Tbird is overclocked to 1.6ghz, is properly cooled-(nice new thermalright AX-7), and is completely stable. Dont want to bore everybody, but its pretty much common knowledge that all cpu's of a class are the same. The manufacturers lock the multipliers on the low speed chips to limit their speeds. Check out the forums at www.overclockers.com, if you want to learn more about this. It's also a tremendously helpful site for learning the ins and outs of hardware problems, as overclocking brings these to the forefront. Many apparent system problems that people running the new high speed chips, both AMD and Intels, are caused by such things as inadequate power supplies, poor cooling of case/cpu or both, bad RAM, etc., etc.,..good luck

Is there a noticeable difference between 1.4 and 1.6 and is it worth the trouble?

Steve

The short answer is no. For video editing every little bit of processing speed you can squeeze out of your CPU probably will reduce rending times, but the actual time saved between say 1.4 and 1.6 Mhz probably isn't worth the effort if you end up with a unstable system more prone to crash.

In the not too distant past chip and mobo producers discouraged overclocking, now some companies like ASUS and Iwill build overclocking options into their BIOS for some of their boards. Now if you really want to go extreme there is a growing cottage industry that sells cases that have windows to "show off" the insides of your PC through a window, or they will gladly cut up a case in order for you to add another half a dozen cooling fans and if you're really into super cooling to allow more extreme over clocking there are systems you can put together or have made to use cooling based in part on how air conditioning works. A bit much for me. <wink>

Ignoring the crashing issues, video timing is measured from a difference source and not using CPU cycles, so changing the processor's clock speed will not mess up video frame rates.
///d@

Like I said, overclocking has to be done intelligently. My previous video computer ran a celeron 566 at 875(might be a few mhz's off here), and it was rock stable. My current 1.4TBird at 1.6 is similiarly rock stable, and produces a noticeably greater ability to play back complex multitrack video concotions at higher frame rates. If I can get a chip to perform noticely faster by spending a small amount of money-($35 for a high performace heatsink and fan), and paying attention to hardware details when I build my machine-(like high quality power supply vs. generic crapola, higher quality overclocking motherboards, quality memory, etc.) then its worth it to me. Plus, building an overclockable computer results in a machine that will be more rugged and stable, because its designed to operate outside design parameters. And if you dont want to, you dont even have to overclock it ! Personally, I enjoy the flexability of being able to modify settings, as this ability enhaces the prospect of having a well-functioning machine. Going from 1.4 to 1.6 ghz with my little overclock takes my 1.4 chip from performace somewhere equaling an XP1700, to about the same level as an XP2000, as measured by Sisoft's multimedia performance test. Not bad for a $95 chip. Warning-overclocking is always a crapshoot. Your chip might not overclock at all, then all you'll be left with is a better built machine.

I would have to agree with your observations. I have overclocked a good number of computers and rarly had any stability issues (other than the normal windows stuff) except in extreme overclocked conditions which I do not recommend anyway. What many do not realize is the benefit of overclocking the BUS as well as the processor. More overall performance is to be gained from bus overclocking than processor overclocks. This is because memory access, video performance, peripheral interfaces, and proessor speeds are all affected positively by PCI bus overclocking. As you have said, ALL components must be up to the task of this and there are some video and peripheral cards that do not behave well while overclocking. Lists of these non OC friendly components are available at many hardware and overclocking websites.
As someone said earlier, temperance and moderation are the order of the day when overclocking. In my experience, done properly, noticable (10-20%) gains are to be had.

PS. Even if you do not overclock, choosing high quality memory that will allow you to use aggressive memory timing in the bios is worth 2-4% performance by itself.

I would really like to see more benchmark testing in "real video" conditions at some of the hardware sites to more accurately predict actual prformance in a programs like VV 3.0.

You said you had no problems "other than the normal windows stuff". Unfortunately for me, I've never had a PC that was 100% stable, there's always the occasional crash or other problem; it's just the nature of Windows. So, if I had overclocked any of them, and had "the normal windows stuff", then I'd *always* have to wonder -- was it me or Windows? By not overclocking, I always get to blame Microsoft <g>.
///d@

Dennis, if you've never had a stable pc you should look at a couple of things that are of fundemental performance to overclockers, heat and low power supply voltages.. If you install a decent hardware utility, like MotherBoardMonitor, you can check your system temperature and power supply voltages. If you're running an amd chip, you gotta make sure your 5v line is up to snuff, + you dont want your case and cpu temps going too high. They have little tutorials on the basics of overclocking at overclockers.com, and if you have the time and inclination, you'll learn a lot. Lots of problems that people have with their computers are caused by poor hardware choices and configurations. Its good to know a few basic things about your machine. Kind of like knowing how your car works well enough to getting it to do what you want it to, without falling victim to your own ignorance.

By overclocking you may get more stuff to blame on Microsoft!!!

Now if only I could blame them for the other problems in my life!!!

Bill, Have you been messin with my wife?

I got my fingers crossed as I'm trying to type this... under XP both my new systems are rock solid stable. No more BSD's, no lockups, no fooling. That isn't to say Windows still don't do weird, unexplained totally goofy things once in awhile, but if it didn't it wouldn't be Windows. <wink>

You want werid, read this:

When I first installed XP I tried the built-in file encryption part of the pro version just for the heck of it. Works OK. I just put them there, so I know which and how many files I put in a folder I just encrypted. So I come back a couple days later. Four out of fifty files are "missing" from their sub folders. I KNOW they should be there, didn't touch them. Windows Explorer says the sub folders they were in are empty, zero, nada, nothing and so it appears to be. So I use Search and sure enough search "sees" all the missing files and in their folders. I could access the files from Search, but under Windows Explorer the folders show empty. I move the files by accessing them from within Search and put them in new folders. Explorer sees them. I move them back to where they were originally, now Explorer can see them again.

That's why I'm sticking with Win2K..