Is my system overclock-able?

Heres what I have.....(dont rag me to hard).... Emachine T2240, Celeron 2.20 GHz., 128 Mb RAM, 40 Gb HD, intergrated video and audio. As far as cooling goes I only have the CPU heatsink and fan, and the powersupply fan. If anymore info is needed ask.

 

Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition
Intel® Celeron® Processor 2.20 GHz (w/128KB L2 cache & 400MHz FSB)
Intel® 845GL Chipset
128 MB DDR (PC2100)
40 GB HDD 1
48x Max. CD-Rom Drive; 3.5" 1.44MB FDD
Intel® Extreme Graphics 3D (integrated)
10/100Mbps built-in Ethernet
56K ITU v.92 ready Fax/Modem
AC '97 Audio
Standard Multimedia Keyboard, 2-Button Wheel Mouse, Standard Speakers
6 USB 2.0 ports (2 on front), 1 Serial, 1 Parallel, 2 PS/2, Microphone-In & Head Phone jack on front, Audio-In & Out, 3 PCI slots (2 available)
7.25"w x 14.125"h x 16"d

 

Win xp with 128MB of ram ??? .....
Getting more ram will boost you speed more then any OC could......

 

I cant realy afford more ram at this point in time...Im flat broke.

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820141174

26$ OCing you system wont make a dif..till you get more mem...win xp needs 256 min...

 

I got more ram. I have a imperial mother board 256 ram onboard audio\video 40 gig hd 2.2 proccor. I tried that clockgen it doesnt support my PLL.

 

did you try the bios... i doubt emachines would allow ocing in thier bios... hmm try something like softfsb or CPUFSB...

hope this helps!

 

I've ran xp off of 32mb EDO ram...a lot of swapping, but still very usable.

 

Somehow I doubt that.

The min. requirements are 64mb, and its not anywhere near what anyone would ever call, very useable. XP has double that as a memory load on boot of a clean install. An antivirus package could eat most of that up alone.

128mb isn't what you could call very useable either, unless you like staring at the desktop and doing nothing else.

256 is better, but still, the paging gets insane pretty quickly.

 

Requirements are useless; I've ran CS source off a 550mhz p3 even though it requires 1.2ghz, and it was pushing out 30fps, which is very playable.

 

64Mb???????

I ran a Compaq Presario 5000, 600mhz Celeron with 128Mb Ram and watched the page file all night after tryin out XP on it. My guess is to ditch it and get something with a little more va va voom.

 

Re: XP:


Sorry, not buying it.

 

I don't believe XP would run with 32MB of RAM either, EDO or not.

 

wow, you must have some kind of magic touch, can you get quake 4 to run at ultra settings @60fps on an apple 2? I bet this guy could.

 

rofl yea im calling BS....... youl need to install it on 128MB of ram and then take out all but 32 .... and that would prolly just give you a out of mem error..

@ Tonglebeak BS or not, i dont see how any of your posts help deadgod ....

Sorry for the slight detour in subject deadgod. What do you mainly do on your system? Gaming ? If so id go with somthing a little more potent then onboard video... Video card speed and ram size are more of a factor in games than anything else....

 

Call bs all you want, but the fact remains xp can run off 32mb of ram.

 

Where did I mention I had "ultra settings"?

 

I'm suprised u have 128mb ram especially with a 2.2 celeron.

The motherboard should support up to 512Mb Ram at a max of DDR2600. Give crucial a shout www.crucial.com or get the update config for your PC @ www.powerleap.com.

 

I dont care if you can run XP on 8MB of ram and run CS source on it ! The point is your not posting any thing helpfull to deadgod. If you whanna go brag about how you can make software run on underrated hardware go some ware else and do it !

 

Actually, there was a point to my post: the guy said he was flat broke, and everyone's like "OMG get more ram you'll never run xp off 128mb"

My post was making a point: you can run xp off of very low ram, and there's no necessity for the guy to buy more ram, especially if he's broke as he mentioned.

I shouldn't have to explain all of my posts though, just because people want to play the BS card and not believe anything other than what system requirements tells them.

 

No the point is you posted your XP on 32MB comment after...

not before... The main thing is for a system to be "usable" in the common since of the word (as in the majorty opinion of others not your single opinion) it needs at least 256MB of ram to get to the point whare most people will call it "usable"...

I wont say this again, I dont care what hardware you'v ran XP or any other softwarer on. Your posts are not helping deadgod in any way shape or form.

 

Duh, of course it was posted after he said he was broke, wtf was I supposed to do forsee the future and post it before he said so?

 

You posted all of your comments after deadgod said:

Thus you posted your 32MB on XP after he already had 256MB of ram....with that im done...