What processor for system build?

[MS]

Hi,

Having done a bit of research, looked at what my supplier (who will do the
actual system build) have available, and decided on my price range, I've
narrowed down my choice of CPUs to the following 5:

AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Barton OEM (400Mhz FSB) (£90.16)
AMD Athlon64 3000 64bit 754Pin CPU (£126.02)
Intel Pentium 4 Northwood 2.8C Ghz 800Mhz (£108.32)
Intel Pentium 4 2.8E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£114.40)
Intel Pentium 4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£130.43)

I have very little idea what the various merits are, the motherboard will
be chosen when the chip has been decided on and I'll be buying 1 GB
memory, along with a 200-250GB hard disk. I may do some mild CPU
overclocking. The OS will be XP Pro. The most processor 'intensive tasks'
will involve using video software.

It's tempting to assume the most expensive CPUs are the best but this is
not always true. Of my choices the 2 most expensive are almost the same price:

AMD Athlon64 3000 64bit 754Pin CPU (£126.02)
Intel Pentium 4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£130.43)

Which is better? What dis/ad-vantages would I get from the 64bit AMD
Athalon, and will my choice in motherboard be limited cos of its 64bit
architecture (and would compatible motherboards be very expensive?)?

Any help making this tricky decision would be most appreciated.

Thanks and regards,

MS

 

[patrick]

Hi,

Having done a bit of research, looked at what my supplier (who will do
the actual system build) have available, and decided on my price range,
I've narrowed down my choice of CPUs to the following 5:

AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Barton OEM (400Mhz FSB) (£90.16)
AMD Athlon64 3000 64bit 754Pin CPU (£126.02)
Intel Pentium 4 Northwood 2.8C Ghz 800Mhz (£108.32)
Intel Pentium 4 2.8E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£114.40)
Intel Pentium 4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£130.43)

I have very little idea what the various merits are, the motherboard
will be chosen when the chip has been decided on and I'll be buying 1 GB
memory, along with a 200-250GB hard disk. I may do some mild CPU
overclocking. The OS will be XP Pro. The most processor 'intensive
tasks' will involve using video software.

It's tempting to assume the most expensive CPUs are the best but this is
not always true. Of my choices the 2 most expensive are almost the same
price:

AMD Athlon64 3000 64bit 754Pin CPU (£126.02)
Intel Pentium 4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£130.43)

Which is better? What dis/ad-vantages would I get from the 64bit AMD
Athalon, and will my choice in motherboard be limited cos of its 64bit
architecture (and would compatible motherboards be very expensive?)?

Any help making this tricky decision would be most appreciated.

Thanks and regards,

MS

Gaming? AMD might be best.
Graphics? AMD is the choice.

Database Mgmt? Server? Perhaps the P4.

I run 2 systems with XP, one with ME, and another 25 with GNU/Linux.
9 of my systems are dual Pentium II/III. One is a Celeron 1.1Ghz
Compaq. The rest are AMD up to the AMD 2000+. I don't see any
difference in ymy file serving, other than that the GNU/Linux systems
are definitely best for network services, mail, filesharing!

The 64 bit processors can run the 32bit OSes? What software is
available? Yes, it permits access to 16Gb of RAM. I have yet to use
more than 512Mb! 32bit processors can access up to 4 GB of RAM.

I don't see any immediate urgency for home users to switch over to 64bit
processors. I am still waiting for the applications.

BUT, when I do get a 64bit system, it will use the mature GNU/Linux
64bit OS!

 

[Dave C.]

AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Barton OEM (400Mhz FSB) (£90.16)
AMD Athlon64 3000 64bit 754Pin CPU (£126.02)
Intel Pentium 4 Northwood 2.8C Ghz 800Mhz (£108.32)
Intel Pentium 4 2.8E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£114.40)
Intel Pentium 4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£130.43)

I have very little idea what the various merits are, the motherboard will
be chosen when the chip has been decided on and I'll be buying 1 GB
memory, along with a 200-250GB hard disk. I may do some mild CPU
overclocking. The OS will be XP Pro. The most processor 'intensive tasks'
will involve using video software.

OK, you can rule out the Athlon XP (somewhat under-powered for video
software, compared to the others) and the Athlon64 (mainboards are much more
expensive for very little performance gain at the 3000 level). ANY of the
three P4 processors you listed would work GREAT!!! I'm a huge AMD fan and
normally try to steer away from Intel, but for what you want to do, the
three P4 processors will offer you overall best bang-for-buck AT THE MOMENT
when cost of motherboard is factored into the equation. You should look at
the amount of cache on each of the three P4 processors, and choose one with
1M of level 2 cache, if possible. Please don't overclock your processor.
You won't notice a significant difference in performance, and you will
shorten the expected lifespan of your entire system. If you need a faster
system, buy it. -Dave

 

[Hamman]

Hi,

Having done a bit of research, looked at what my supplier (who will do the
actual system build) have available, and decided on my price range, I've
narrowed down my choice of CPUs to the following 5:

AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Barton OEM (400Mhz FSB) (£90.16)
AMD Athlon64 3000 64bit 754Pin CPU (£126.02)
Intel Pentium 4 Northwood 2.8C Ghz 800Mhz (£108.32)
Intel Pentium 4 2.8E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£114.40)
Intel Pentium 4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£130.43)

I have very little idea what the various merits are, the motherboard will
be chosen when the chip has been decided on and I'll be buying 1 GB
memory, along with a 200-250GB hard disk. I may do some mild CPU
overclocking. The OS will be XP Pro. The most processor 'intensive tasks'
will involve using video software.

It's tempting to assume the most expensive CPUs are the best but this is
not always true. Of my choices the 2 most expensive are almost the same price:

AMD Athlon64 3000 64bit 754Pin CPU (£126.02)
Intel Pentium 4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£130.43)

Which is better? What dis/ad-vantages would I get from the 64bit AMD
Athalon, and will my choice in motherboard be limited cos of its 64bit
architecture (and would compatible motherboards be very expensive?)?

Any help making this tricky decision would be most appreciated.

Thanks and regards,

MS

Well i would rule out the two P4E cores straight away, too many heat
problems from what i've heard.

The A64 platform is changing to the socket 939 (?) soon, so you could wait
for the first of those.

So that basically leaves us between the P4C 2.8 and the AthXP. If the system
is for anything other than media encoding (video editing etc) or heavy
database work (servers, SQL etc) then get the P4C; otherwise i would go for
the AthXP 3200+.

If you do get an AthXP, go for the nForce2 chipset (ultra if you can afford
it) and match it with a good quality PC3200 or higher ram. Something.

Something to note is that the mobile 2500+'s are clocking way above the
3200+ mark, and cost a fair bit less. Have a look on www.overclockers.co.uk
for mobile chips.

hamman

 

[MS]

Gaming? AMD might be best.
Graphics? AMD is the choice.

Database Mgmt? Server? Perhaps the P4.

I run 2 systems with XP, one with ME, and another 25 with GNU/Linux.
9 of my systems are dual Pentium II/III. One is a Celeron 1.1Ghz
Compaq. The rest are AMD up to the AMD 2000+. I don't see any
difference in ymy file serving, other than that the GNU/Linux systems
are definitely best for network services, mail, filesharing!

The 64 bit processors can run the 32bit OSes? What software is
available? Yes, it permits access to 16Gb of RAM. I have yet to use
more than 512Mb! 32bit processors can access up to 4 GB of RAM.

I don't see any immediate urgency for home users to switch over to 64bit
processors. I am still waiting for the applications.

BUT, when I do get a 64bit system, it will use the mature GNU/Linux
64bit OS!

Thanks Patrick. --I'm a little confused as to which AMD is best for
graphics (you wrote "Graphics? AMD is the choice") and when you say
graphics does this include video manipulation, conversion, and editing?
You imply the AMD 64 bit won't run with a 32 bit OS (I will be running XP
Pro, which is a 32 bit OS), so I can forget the 64bit AMD CPU. Does this
mean you think the AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Barton would be best for me -- it
is the cheapest on my list at £90 -- will it outperform the Intel Pentium
4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor which at £130.43 is almost 50percent
more expensive?

Cheers,

MS

 

[FSAA]

Hi,

Having done a bit of research, looked at what my supplier (who will do the
actual system build) have available, and decided on my price range, I've
narrowed down my choice of CPUs to the following 5:

AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Barton OEM (400Mhz FSB) (£90.16)
AMD Athlon64 3000 64bit 754Pin CPU (£126.02)
Intel Pentium 4 Northwood 2.8C Ghz 800Mhz (£108.32)
Intel Pentium 4 2.8E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£114.40)
Intel Pentium 4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£130.43)

I have very little idea what the various merits are, the motherboard will
be chosen when the chip has been decided on and I'll be buying 1 GB
memory, along with a 200-250GB hard disk. I may do some mild CPU
overclocking. The OS will be XP Pro. The most processor 'intensive tasks'
will involve using video software.

It's tempting to assume the most expensive CPUs are the best but this is
not always true. Of my choices the 2 most expensive are almost the same price:

AMD Athlon64 3000 64bit 754Pin CPU (£126.02)
Intel Pentium 4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£130.43)

Which is better? What dis/ad-vantages would I get from the 64bit AMD
Athalon, and will my choice in motherboard be limited cos of its 64bit
architecture (and would compatible motherboards be very expensive?)?

Any help making this tricky decision would be most appreciated.

Thanks and regards,

MS

I don't think it is a good time to buy a new system (New memory DDR2, AGP to
PCI express change, Socket T problems, Prescott mini thermal meltdown etc
etc)

But if you are doing video encoding, you can throw the Athlon XP out of the
consideration (too slow), I would go with a Pentium 4C (Northwood) rather
than a Prescott (P4e) (P4c runs cooler, but they are end of line product),
will you be getting the Prescott in Socket T format? I will try to avoid
those for a while until the dust settle.

The A64 sounds OK, I think they are still slower in Video encoding than the
P4 but they are still way faster than the Athlon XPs. But again you have to
choose from 2 different sockets again. And they don't support PCI express
yet.

The mobos are not expensive, but it decides what type of RAM, gfx cards etc
etc you can use. At this stage if I am forced to get a new system I would go
with the soon to arrived Socket 939 Athlon 64 systems
I personally would wait a few months until the Socket 939 or Socket T get
mature enough first. At this point in time we are in the middle of
discarding the old platforms (Athlon XP, Pentium 4c Northwood) while the new
platforms are problematic

FSAA

 

[FSAA]

Thanks Patrick. --I'm a little confused as to which AMD is best for
graphics (you wrote "Graphics? AMD is the choice") and when you say
graphics does this include video manipulation, conversion, and editing?
You imply the AMD 64 bit won't run with a 32 bit OS (I will be running XP
Pro, which is a 32 bit OS), so I can forget the 64bit AMD CPU. Does this
mean you think the AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Barton would be best for me -- it
is the cheapest on my list at £90 -- will it outperform the Intel Pentium
4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor which at £130.43 is almost 50percent
more expensive?

Cheers,

MS

The Athlon XP 3200 won't outrun the P4e 3.0 in video editing (in fact a lot
slower)

I think what he was saying is it is not a good time to buy yet, (see my
other post), so if your current system can serve you for a few more months,
then hang on to it first

 

[JK]

Gaming? AMD might be best.
Graphics? AMD is the choice.

Database Mgmt? Server? Perhaps the P4.

I run 2 systems with XP, one with ME, and another 25 with GNU/Linux.
9 of my systems are dual Pentium II/III. One is a Celeron 1.1Ghz
Compaq. The rest are AMD up to the AMD 2000+. I don't see any
difference in ymy file serving, other than that the GNU/Linux systems
are definitely best for network services, mail, filesharing!

The 64 bit processors can run the 32bit OSes? What software is
available? Yes, it permits access to 16Gb of RAM. I have yet to use
more than 512Mb! 32bit processors can access up to 4 GB of RAM.

I don't see any immediate urgency for home users to switch over to 64bit
processors.

The Athlon 64 has SSE2 and an on chip memory controller. For those
reasons, plus a few other improvements on the already great performing
Athlon XP, the Athlon 64 is superb even with a 32 bit OS and 32 bit
applications!

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=1

 

[MS]

Now I am confused!

2 'informative' responses from Dave C and Hamman apparently saying the
exact opposite of each other.

Dave C says to rule out the Athlon XP for video software and to go for one
of the P4 CPUs preferably one with 1M of L2 cache, which this one has
'Intel Pentium 4 2.8E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor' (the 3.0E Ghz version
of this processor also has 1ML2 but is OEM not retail boxed so doesn't
come with all the usual extras, heatsinks, etc, accordingly I'm ruling it
out, unless someone tells me a good reason not to).

Hamman says to rule out the P4E cores (the 2 Dave suggests) straight away
as they have 'too many heat problems from what i've heard'. He suggests
the P4C if NOT doing media encoding, etc. (which I will be doing a lot of)
and if doing this then to go for the AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Barton preferably
with a nForce2 chipset on the motherboard and with PC3200 or higher ram.
BUT the Athlon XP is the CPU that Dave C rules out immediately for video
editing!

Both guys sound like they know what they're talking about but they are
saying the exact opposite of each other!!

!!!HELP!!!. ;-)

Thanks,

MS

 

[Dave C.]

">

Dave C says to rule out the Athlon XP for video software and to go for one
of the P4 CPUs preferably one with 1M of L2 cache, which this one has
'Intel Pentium 4 2.8E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor' (the 3.0E Ghz version
of this processor also has 1ML2 but is OEM not retail boxed so doesn't
come with all the usual extras, heatsinks, etc, accordingly I'm ruling it
out, unless someone tells me a good reason not to).

Hamman says to rule out the P4E cores (the 2 Dave suggests) straight away
as they have 'too many heat problems from what i've heard'. He suggests
the P4C if NOT doing media encoding, etc. (which I will be doing a lot of)
and if doing this then to go for the AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Barton preferably
with a nForce2 chipset on the motherboard and with PC3200 or higher ram.
BUT the Athlon XP is the CPU that Dave C rules out immediately for video
editing!

The P4 is slightly faster for video editing. Other than that, the two
companies (amd/intel) are virtually tied, as far as performance at same
speed/performance rating goes. That doesn't mean you can't do video editing
with AMD. But as I posted before, the Athlon XP is a little slow compared
to the others and the mainboards for the Athlon 64s are too expensive to
justify for the minor increase in performance over the P4 processors. (at
the moment, at least)

It is TRUE that the P4 Prescotts processors are harder to cool, but that is
not a problem. Just buy the OEM processor and put a good aftermarket cooler
(preferably all copper) on it. This doesn't even have to be expensive. I
put a Prescott processor (OEM) in an SFF case with an all-copper HSF that I
paid about ten bucks for (Speeze brand, from Newegg). It stays between
39-43C under load in a case that is NOT well ventilated. So heat doesn't
HAVE to be a problem with the Prescott. Just get the right cooler for it.

For what you want to do, any of the five processors you originally listed
would work. But if you are looking for the best bang-for-buck right NOW, a
P4 with 1M cache is IT, because the motherboards for it are cheap. But then
again, if you can afford an athlon64 mainboard, that is a good choice also.
So it's a tough decision, and I'm not surprised you are getting conflicting
answers. -Dave

 

[Dave C.]

The Athlon 64 has SSE2 and an on chip memory controller. For those
reasons, plus a few other improvements on the already great performing
Athlon XP, the Athlon 64 is superb even with a 32 bit OS and 32 bit
applications!

Agreed. But have you priced the mainboards for those puppies? I have.
It's a little faster than P4, but you need to pay about twice as much for
the mainboard. Not worth it, IMHO. Not at the moment, anyway. -Dave

 

[JK]

Motherboards for an Athlon 64 are a bit more than for an Athlon XP.
If you check www.pricewatch.com, you can find a number of
Athlon 64 3000+ combos with cpu, motherboard and heatsink
for around $275 or so.

 

[JK]

OK, you can rule out the Athlon XP (somewhat under-powered for video
software, compared to the others) and the Athlon64 (mainboards are much more
expensive for very little performance gain at the 3000 level).

The motherboards are only a bit more than those for an Athlon XP. Check
www.pricewatch.com. I noticed good Athlon 64 3000+ motherboard combos
with cpu, motherboard, and heatsink for around $275 or so.

 

[JK]

That leaves the Athlon 64!

 

[JK]

The Athlon 64 is great with a 32 bit OS and 32 bit software.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=1

 

[Ben Pope]

Hi,

Having done a bit of research, looked at what my supplier (who will do the
actual system build) have available, and decided on my price range, I've
narrowed down my choice of CPUs to the following 5:

AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Barton OEM (400Mhz FSB) (£90.16)
AMD Athlon64 3000 64bit 754Pin CPU (£126.02)
Intel Pentium 4 Northwood 2.8C Ghz 800Mhz (£108.32)
Intel Pentium 4 2.8E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£114.40)
Intel Pentium 4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£130.43)

I have very little idea what the various merits are, the motherboard will
be chosen when the chip has been decided on and I'll be buying 1 GB
memory, along with a 200-250GB hard disk. I may do some mild CPU
overclocking. The OS will be XP Pro. The most processor 'intensive tasks'
will involve using video software.

Wow, well the "help" so far probably left you more confused than you
started!

Well assuming you can afford either of the most expensive 2 CPUs, I'll talk
about those, as they are the best.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=1956&p=16

Thats the first page of a fairly rounded review which should include the
important processors.

I'd get the AMD64 - it's much better than the XP.

However, you'll probably find that the P4 is a tad faster when encoding
video. Generally chucking video around whilst you are sitting in front of
it, you'll probably find them pretty close. I doubt you sit in front of the
computer when encoding, so it won't make much difference (a few percent).

Now, given the heat production of the P4 over the AMD (which is more than
significant) I would go with the AMD. It should be generally about the same
as the P4, beating in a few tasks, trailing it in a few others, including
encoding.

Of course, the AMD on nForce3 platform is much easier to overclock than the
P4 due almost entirely to the heat situation, this shows that AMD core is in
its infancy and has more headroom, whilst the P4 core is stretched to it's
limit already.

It seems that the socket situation is somewhat unstable right now, the 754
is on it's way out, to be replaced by 939, but right now they're too
expensive. The P4 socket is moving over to the questionable LGA-775 socket,
a cost cutting move by Intel that, in my opinion, is not in the interest of
consumers. (it's not a cost-cut for us, merely a cost-shift).

939 on nForce3 250 is my favourite choice right now, when ignoring price!
CPU (AMD Athlon 64 3500) is £250, mobo (Gigabyte GA-K8NSNXP) is £135
including the VAT.

If you were me, you'd get the Athlon 64 3000+ on nForce3 250 and be a very
happy bunny!

Oh, well, whichever CPU you go with, your choice of motherboard is limited!
The nForce3 250 platform is in my opinion the best, that limits you even
further, but there are certainly some good ones.

Running a 32 OS and software on a 64bit AMD system is generally as
compatible and faster than 32bit on 32bit (clock for clock).

Ben

 

[Hamman]

Now I am confused!

2 'informative' responses from Dave C and Hamman apparently saying the
exact opposite of each other.

Dave C says to rule out the Athlon XP for video software and to go for one
of the P4 CPUs preferably one with 1M of L2 cache, which this one has
'Intel Pentium 4 2.8E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor' (the 3.0E Ghz version
of this processor also has 1ML2 but is OEM not retail boxed so doesn't
come with all the usual extras, heatsinks, etc, accordingly I'm ruling it
out, unless someone tells me a good reason not to).

Hamman says to rule out the P4E cores (the 2 Dave suggests) straight away
as they have 'too many heat problems from what i've heard'. He suggests
the P4C if NOT doing media encoding, etc. (which I will be doing a lot of)
and if doing this then to go for the AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Barton preferably
with a nForce2 chipset on the motherboard and with PC3200 or higher ram.
BUT the Athlon XP is the CPU that Dave C rules out immediately for video
editing!

Both guys sound like they know what they're talking about but they are
saying the exact opposite of each other!!

!!!HELP!!!. ;-)

Thanks,

MS

I think you read my post wrong... or i didnt make it clear.

P4C = Video editing / encoding + database work
AthXP = Gaming / General Desktop stuff

hamman

 

[~ Q ~]

Hamman - typed:

I think you read my post wrong... or i didnt make it clear.

P4C = Video editing / encoding + database work
AthXP = Gaming / General Desktop stuff

hamman

It was a typo

"So that basically leaves us between the P4C 2.8 and the AthXP. If the
system
is for anything other than media encoding (video editing etc) or heavy
database work (servers, SQL etc) then get the P4C; otherwise i would go
for
the AthXP 3200+."

I've used both Intel & AMD & will choose either next time, according to
which I consider better at the time of purchase. The problem with Intel
is AMD is nearly always cheaper & unless one needs the fastest video
editing, I doubt if AMD's performance in this respect is worse below the
top-end models (price for price)which is the range most people will be
looking at.

Another problem for Intel is that they've stated that the P4 is more or
less finished but AMD is just beginning with their S939. It does sound
like Intel will be 1st to market with a dual core CPU but not for a
while yet. At least Intel are getting some fairly serious competition -
at the moment anyhow. I do wonder if Intel could just drop their prices
enough to really hurt AMD once & for all - they might need to convince
their shareholders though!

Isn't it ironic that Intel (& HP) spent so much on R&D developing the
Itanium - to be pipped to the post in the desktop market by their rival
who also have a presence in the server market?

 

[~misfit~]

Hi,

Having done a bit of research, looked at what my supplier (who will
do the actual system build) have available, and decided on my price
range, I've narrowed down my choice of CPUs to the following 5:

AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Barton OEM (400Mhz FSB) (£90.16)
AMD Athlon64 3000 64bit 754Pin CPU (£126.02)
Intel Pentium 4 Northwood 2.8C Ghz 800Mhz (£108.32)
Intel Pentium 4 2.8E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£114.40)
Intel Pentium 4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£130.43)

I have very little idea what the various merits are, the motherboard
will
be chosen when the chip has been decided on and I'll be buying 1 GB
memory, along with a 200-250GB hard disk. I may do some mild CPU
overclocking. The OS will be XP Pro. The most processor 'intensive
tasks' will involve using video software.

It's tempting to assume the most expensive CPUs are the best but this
is
not always true. Of my choices the 2 most expensive are almost the
same price:

AMD Athlon64 3000 64bit 754Pin CPU (£126.02)
Intel Pentium 4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£130.43)

Which is better? What dis/ad-vantages would I get from the 64bit AMD
Athalon, and will my choice in motherboard be limited cos of its 64bit
architecture (and would compatible motherboards be very expensive?)?

Any help making this tricky decision would be most appreciated.

Thanks and regards,

Athlon 64.

 

[~misfit~]

Please don't overclock your
processor. You won't notice a significant difference in performance,
and you will shorten the expected lifespan of your entire system. If
you need a faster system, buy it. -Dave

LOL. I have an XP1800+ (Original clock 1.53Ghz) that I am running at 2.1Ghz
(200 x 10.5). Do I notice a significant difference in performance? Hell
yes!! It performs and benchmarks like an XP2800+. Will it shorten the
expected lifespan of my 'entire system'? Not before it's *waaay* obsolete,
if then. I've just 'de-commisioned' a Celeron 600 that has been running at
900Mhz for over four years because I wanted the case/PSU for another
machine. It ran flawlessly the whole time, as did all the peripherals.

If you know what you're doing then there is nothing wrong with overclocking
with very little, if any, risk involved.