richwhite
|
2011-03-17
, 15:20
|
Posts: 908 |
Thanked: 501 times |
Joined on Sep 2010
@ West Sussex, England
|
#21
|
|
2011-03-17
, 15:35
|
Posts: 5,795 |
Thanked: 3,151 times |
Joined on Feb 2007
@ Agoura Hills Calif
|
#22
|
So QCPUFreq won't cause any more processor damage but will affect battery life more? Will XLV be a better choice?
|
2011-03-17
, 15:48
|
Posts: 908 |
Thanked: 501 times |
Joined on Sep 2010
@ West Sussex, England
|
#23
|
First, there is no evidence that ANY overclocking setting has ever caused ANY processor damage on ANY N900.
XLV MIGHT be a better setting. If you use XLV and it seems to cause crashes, DON'T USE IT. Different N900s ARE DIFFERENT.
Read the overclocking docs on the Wiki.
|
2011-03-17
, 16:15
|
Posts: 5,795 |
Thanked: 3,151 times |
Joined on Feb 2007
@ Agoura Hills Calif
|
#24
|
|
2011-03-17
, 16:23
|
Banned |
Posts: 78 |
Thanked: 23 times |
Joined on Dec 2010
|
#25
|
|
2011-03-17
, 16:30
|
Posts: 908 |
Thanked: 501 times |
Joined on Sep 2010
@ West Sussex, England
|
#26
|
The flashing Wiki is confusing. The overclocking docs aren't. The basic message here is that you have to try these things out and see how they work on your N900. The settings such as Ideal have an order. You should use the one that undervolts as much as possible. Since ideal isn't working for you, try the next one in order. If that one doesn't work well for you, try the next one in order. Default is the same one as your N900 uses.
And you talk about asking questions as if no one has done that before. Thousands of questions have been asked and answered.
|
2011-03-17
, 16:34
|
Posts: 1,163 |
Thanked: 1,873 times |
Joined on Feb 2011
@ The Netherlands
|
#27
|
|
2011-03-17
, 16:44
|
Posts: 908 |
Thanked: 501 times |
Joined on Sep 2010
@ West Sussex, England
|
#28
|