More Tripple Faults

[elias]

do triple faults hurt your processor at all? they soudn dnagerous.

[Pype.Clicker]

the processor is just sending itself a reset signal. That is usually harmless ... a lot more safe than overclocking it, for instance. ..

[Tim]

More technically: the processor says to the chipset, "I've crashed". The chipset asserts the reset signal and the system reboots.

[elias]

speaking of overclockin, i bought a 1.5 gHz AMD Athlon processor, but my mobo has it running at 1150 mHz. how would i overclock it up to at least 1.4 gHz, and would it be dangerous at all.

[Tim]

If the CPU itself is rated to 1.5GHz, clocking it to less than that is going to do no harm at all. Just play with the motherboard jumpers, or, more likely, the BIOS settings.

I'm no expert on overclocking, but apparently Athlons don't take kindly to overheating. Whereas Intel chips slow the clock down or shut off, Athlons are said to blow up...

[Pype.Clicker]

now watch out your steps!
AMD sells as "athlon 1500+" a processor that actually runs with a frequency lower than 1500 MHz but which actually offers better performances than an Pentium clocked at 1500 MHz

So better check your CPU specs before changing the clock frequency.

And, btw, do never change the external frequency, because this one is also used by your memory and you might have unstable system if you overvlock your RAM.

[elias]

i dont have the 1500+. i forget the exact name, might be 2100+, but i know its a 1.5 gHz processor. but if AMD's do blow up when overclocked, would this really happen to me? because if its a 1.5 gHz processor, and i put it at 1.4 gHz, its still not even at what its supposed to run at, so i shouldnt have ot dive behind my computer chair. to avoid the shrapnel

[Pype.Clicker]

About Overclocked AMDs

[DarylD]

Working as an IT manager I have seen the effects that simple years of use have on a machine, parts fail with alarming regularity on standard unclocked machines.

If you start overclocking, you are reducing the life span of components drastically. I wouldn't expect a "supercharged" processor to run reliably for more than a year or two. And during that time it will inevitable be running less than perfect.

I still believe when a lot of people say Windows NT/2000/XP is unreliable, what they actually mean is they built this machine up from scratch, overclock everything, installed Windows on it (badly) and then complain when it crashes every 10 minutes. I have not had a single crash on any of the test 2000/XP machines here at work in over a year and my home machine (XP) has *NEVER* crashed.

Anyway, feel better for getting that of my chest!!!

Daryl.

PS. A crash is defined as a total OS failure or error that requires a reboot, just because the alpha version of some IRC client keeps bombing out doesn't mean its crashed!

[Schol-R-LEA]

Perhaps; the NT kernel is indeed far superior to the 9x one, there's no question of that. I can only recall a very few instances where NT or 2K (I haven't used XP to an great extent) suffered system crashes on well-maintained machines, and each of the machines in question were development platforms.

OTOH, looking at the details window on the error messages (and occasionally, the debug info via Visual Studio) I've noticed that application crashes frequently occur within the system DLLs; not as frequently as they do in 9x (where 'KERNEL32.DLL' and 'GDI.DLL' are the culprits of many an 'application' failure) but still quite often. I cannot say if these were because of a bug in the calling application (say, an invalid calling argument) or the system DLL, however. Probably, there were some of both types at different times.

[jrfritz]

Is this getting off topic?

[elias]

DARYlD, i can see how overclocking a system would harm it, but i have a 1.5 gHz processor running at 1.15 gHz. so if i put it up to the speed its supposed to run, would it still be harmed? please tell me how so.