Halcyon
Member
Just a thought came to mind the other day as I was over clocking for my PSX emulator. So forgive me, im going to have to use some rather subjective terms because im just not scientific enough when it comes to this stuff 
So as far as I know overclocking is changing the frequency of (i guess the cpu) and a high frequency equates to being able to run more complicated code or programs faster. So if that is true (I think at least in a loose sense it is) If i had a program that counted to 100 and required exactly 100sec to do it at 1hz would it be able to count to 100 in 50sec at 2hz?
So if the above is true it would seem that there is a linear relationship between time to complete the program and frequency of the cpu.
t= 100/hz
So when i was a teenager i remember processors seemed to only come out in values like 666Mhz (one of my favorites
) or 733Mhz I never saw anything like 420Mhz or 69Mhz is this mainly an industry convention or are there really significant accomplishments one crosses at the multiples of 33 for some reason.
So to wrap it up in a neat little bow, should i only stop at significant values when over clocking my Pandora or is 698Mhz just a little bit less then 700Mhz?
So as far as I know overclocking is changing the frequency of (i guess the cpu) and a high frequency equates to being able to run more complicated code or programs faster. So if that is true (I think at least in a loose sense it is) If i had a program that counted to 100 and required exactly 100sec to do it at 1hz would it be able to count to 100 in 50sec at 2hz?
So if the above is true it would seem that there is a linear relationship between time to complete the program and frequency of the cpu.
t= 100/hz
So when i was a teenager i remember processors seemed to only come out in values like 666Mhz (one of my favorites
So to wrap it up in a neat little bow, should i only stop at significant values when over clocking my Pandora or is 698Mhz just a little bit less then 700Mhz?