Downsides of Overclocking

[UpstartXT]

Hi all, I had a couple of questions about overclocking in general. I have only overclocked once (an FX-55, a long, long time ago), so my knowledge is pretty limited.

If the purpose of my machine is to be a gaming rig, should I still be pushing my overclock to its absolute limits (as opposed to someone who merely runs a rig to try and get the craziest overclock)?

For example, are there drawbacks to having your overclock run at those settings jussst below where they would cause your system to be unstable, as opposed to a more conservative overclock? By drawbacks I mean possibly wearing out your components or maybe causing instability problems that are not detected by stuff like Prime 95 or whatever?

Or if I want maximum gaming performance, should I just go for it and find the best overclock I can as long as it passes Prime95 and stuff, and I won't have to worry about parts wearing out for the next two years (especially RAM)?

 

[LittleNemoNES]

THe 45nm CPUs OC very well with little voltage change.
I'm doing 3.4 @ 1.2volts!

Once you notice you have to exponentially ramp up the voltage to gain higher OCs, that's when you stop.

I don't recommend being @ the bleeding edge of what your hardware can do.

If you wanted, you could get one of the new wolfdales and dial it up to 3Gh. You shouldn't have to change anything else -- except maybe a minimal+ in Northbridge Voltage.

I have EIST and C1E enabled in the bios so I use my montrous power only when I need it.
Works great once you find your OC sweet spot.

 

[Twsmit]

There are always risks when overclocking, such as instability and wearing out components. I wouldn't be too worried about breaking your hardware but would advise you to keep your expectations low and a target budget in mind. A lot of OCers spend big money to get the last bit of performance for their benchmarks.

Buying a $200 CPU and adding on a $50 heatsink to get an extra 200mhz is not very cost efficient, so that is a choice you will have to make. Likewise buying $80 ram at DDR800 speed or some ridiculously fast $200 ram for extra overclock headroom. Those choices are up to you and IMO should be your primary concerns, not so much instability.

If you want to do this the easy and cheap way, but the right components and expect to get 2 or 3 speed grades over stock ie. take a 2.8ghz to 3.2ghz and call it a day and be happy. However if you want to spend a little more cash and devote more time tweaking and stress testing, getting a beefy heatsink, better ram, better mobo etc.... will net you better performance for your games but at the cost of dollars and the time getting it stable.

 

[UpstartXT]

Twsmit- Good points there man, pretty much what I wanted to know, I will be doing some research to try and find the best bang for the buck for my needs

 

[BoboKatt]

Seems you got all the info you needed. One thing I do want to mention is power consumption and OC'ing. Honestly I doubt many really care as in the grand scheme of things, like running your AC, your big screen TV/entertainment system... heating, hot water, dishwasher etc., chances are your CPU is not much compared.

However I have to admit that when I crank my Q6600 G0 to its limit (or what I think is a safe limit of around 3.5Ghz) the amount of power it consumes while at full load doing some video encoding etc., is monstrously high. Essentially I need so much vcore, Northbridge etc increases in power... that my power consumption goes through the roof. Not to mention heat and noise.

Hence as others have said... find the sweet spot?. and that is what to shoot for. I have been running my Q6600 G0 from day one (the first week they went on sale the G0 variant) oc'ed anywhere from 3.5Ghz to where it is now, which is my sweet spot at 3.34Ghz without ONE problem. No corrupted data... no bad RAM... no blown power supply -- just sweet incredible give or take 1Ghz increase in speed. I truly find it hard to recommend any other CPU for the money.

 

[UpstartXT]

Originally posted by: BoboKatt
I truly find it hard to recommend any other CPU for the money.

Really? Because I was thinking of getting the e8400 for gaming, if I could get either for free, you think I should go with the q6600?

 

[Miramonti]

I've never had a cpu fail prematurely because of overclocking, and the intel c2d's allow users to be pretty aggressive.

Motherboards and memory is a different story tho, and reliability of them has been a costly pia. You might be able to achieve a very aggressive and stable overclock, but there's no question imo it will be at the risk of a shorter lifespan of some components.

Fortunately warranties are pretty long for most mobos and memory.

 

[UpstartXT]

Wait I'm not sure if I understand RAM frequency correctly:

If I am oc'ing a e8400 to 3.6 ghz, which is the maximum I can do with DDR2 800 RAM, will this wear out my RAM faster than doing the same exact overclock with DDR2 1000 RAM?

 

[Martimus]

Originally posted by: UpstartXT
Wait I'm not sure if I understand RAM frequency correctly:

If I am oc'ing a e8400 to 3.6 ghz, which is the maximum I can do with DDR2 800 RAM, will this wear out my RAM faster than doing the same exact overclock with DDR2 1000 RAM?

Using a 1:1 ratio, DDR2 800 RAM will run at its rated frequency at 3.6GHz on the e8400 (400MHz FSB). DDR2 1000 RAM will run at its rated frequency at 4.0GHz (500MHz FSB). Multiply the FSB by 2 (double data rate), and that is what speed the RAM will run at without a divider. Changing the RAM divider will change this however.

edit: I think I misread your question the first time. The RAM is rated at 800MHz, so it should be safe to run at that speed, since the manufacturer tested it at that speed. It should run at that speed for the life of the chip, but a higher rated stick should last longer, since it has been tested for a larger margin. The active regions do change over time, so they will all fail given enough time, but that isn't something that you really need to worry about since the products are probably tested with tough lifetime stress runs to ensure a high yield at that speed bin.

 

[UpstartXT]

Originally posted by: Martimus

Originally posted by: UpstartXT
Wait I'm not sure if I understand RAM frequency correctly:

If I am oc'ing a e8400 to 3.6 ghz, which is the maximum I can do with DDR2 800 RAM, will this wear out my RAM faster than doing the same exact overclock with DDR2 1000 RAM?

Using a 1:1 ratio, DDR2 800 RAM will run at its rated frequency at 3.6GHz on the e8400 (400MHz FSB). DDR2 1000 RAM will run at its rated frequency at 4.0GHz (500MHz FSB). Multiply the FSB by 2 (double data rate), and that is what speed the RAM will run at without a divider. Changing the RAM divider will change this however.

I get that part, but I'm interested in the effects of running RAM at its max speed such as wearing down the RAM or less stability. Assuming I had some sticks of 800 and some 1000, and I could run either for my 3.6 ghz overclock, would there be any difference in terms of heat, durability, or stability?

 

[v8envy]

Some of the higher speed grade ram requires higher voltages to hit its rated frequency. So if you're running 1066 ram at 2.1+ volts, you're placing a bit more strain on your mboard. And the ram.

If you're running 1066 ram at the same voltages and timings as the 800 stuff both should last the same amount, if both have equivalent heat spreaders. If you have 800 ram that requires > 2 volts compared to 1066 running 800 at 1.8 volts, the 1066 may have a chance of lasting longer and not helping an nvidia chipset board immolate itself.

Short answer: there's no guarantee pricier stuff will last longer when run slower. But there's no guarantee cheaper stuff will run at higher speed. Everything else is luck of the draw.

 

[zfooz]

MY E8400 will do 3.6ghz at 1.20v or less, but it takes 1.3v to get to 3.8ghz.. Once you get close to 4ghz the thing just wants more and more volts, and quick!
Would suggest for anyone 400FSB * 9 which is 3600mhz and 1:1 ratio for 800mhz ram with tight timings.. This exact setup really flies and it's usually not worth going any farther. I'm trying to get 450FSB *8 .5 just so i can run my ram higher and it's complaining :/

 

[Tweakin]

Originally posted by: UpstartXT

Originally posted by: Martimus

Originally posted by: UpstartXT
Wait I'm not sure if I understand RAM frequency correctly:

If I am oc'ing a e8400 to 3.6 ghz, which is the maximum I can do with DDR2 800 RAM, will this wear out my RAM faster than doing the same exact overclock with DDR2 1000 RAM?

Using a 1:1 ratio, DDR2 800 RAM will run at its rated frequency at 3.6GHz on the e8400 (400MHz FSB). DDR2 1000 RAM will run at its rated frequency at 4.0GHz (500MHz FSB). Multiply the FSB by 2 (double data rate), and that is what speed the RAM will run at without a divider. Changing the RAM divider will change this however.

I get that part, but I'm interested in the effects of running RAM at its max speed such as wearing down the RAM or less stability. Assuming I had some sticks of 800 and some 1000, and I could run either for my 3.6 ghz overclock, would there be any difference in terms of heat, durability, or stability?

This will not wear out your memory. Pumping more voltage into them so you can obtain an FSB well beyond what your memory is rated for Could damage your memory. If all you attempt to do is up your fsb with all the voltages at default, your fine...and this is the limit of my OCing on my primary rig's.

 

[Twista]

Originally posted by: zfooz
MY E8400 will do 3.6ghz at 1.20v or less, but it takes 1.3v to get to 3.8ghz.. Once you get close to 4ghz the thing just wants more and more volts, and quick!
Would suggest for anyone 400FSB * 9 which is 3600mhz and 1:1 ratio for 800mhz ram with tight timings.. This exact setup really flies and it's usually not worth going any farther. I'm trying to get 450FSB *8 .5 just so i can run my ram higher and it's complaining :/

my e8400 needs 1.3 volts in order to get 3.8 ghz. it would be stable @ 1.29 but vdrop makes it very unstable once it drops into the 1.28s

 

[BigMoosey74]

Originally posted by: jjsole
I've never had a cpu fail prematurely because of overclocking, and the intel c2d's allow users to be pretty aggressive.

What do you mean by prematurely...? 5 years...10 years? I am curious how long a CPU lasts if it is OCd 24/7 compared to how long it would last at stock settings. Have you ever had a CPU die that was OCd?

To simplify and add to the topic, higher voltages and their consequences are the downside of overclocking. The more wear and tear you put your hardware through the shorter life span you are giving it. CPUs can last a really really long time before they die. I use to work at a place that was using P3 CPUs for everyday use and they still are using them to this day.

I think as long as you are in the specified voltage range given by a manufacturer and have a good cooling setup to stay around and below 60C at full tilt, you are overclocking fairly safe. For a CPU that is. My temperature and voltage comments definitely apply to other hardware as well but they will have different temperature tolerations

 

[PolymerTim]

I think the answer to that depends on both the voltage and the temperatures you're running at.

One of the first computers I ever built was a K62-450MHZ about 10 years ago for my gf (now wife) and is still running to this day for her parents who only need it for basic internet and word processing (although modern java in web pages is starting to give it problems). Nothing in that case has had to be changed out over those 10 years, not even the PSU.

AT did an excellent review on this topic not too long ago. As always, it was buried in a product review article and I could only find it by searching google. Check out these two pages that look specifically at CPU expected lifetimes with varying temperatures.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...howdoc.aspx?i=3251&p=5

 

[UpstartXT]

Originally posted by: BigMoosey74

I think as long as you are in the specified voltage range given by a manufacturer and have a good cooling setup to stay around and below 60C at full tilt, you are overclocking fairly safe. For a CPU that is. My temperature and voltage comments definitely apply to other hardware as well but they will have different temperature tolerations

So like, when you overclock do you just look up the maximum voltages and lowest timings and immediately set them all to that, and then just mess with your FSB until it's running as fast as it can be stable, then check to make sure you aren't overheating? After all, if you are setting things to what the manufacturer says they can run at, even if they are the maximum, then you shouldn't have to worry about anything right?

-Edit: Just to be clear here, I recognize that many people overclock way beyond manufacturer settings, I'm just trying to figure out what is the sweet spot for my own personal needs, which is to get the most out of a e8400 for gaming purposes, while being 100% stable and not requiring me to change my RAM after 6 months.

 

[Gillbot]

Originally posted by: gersson
THe 45nm CPUs OC very well with little voltage change.
I'm doing 3.4 @ 1.2volts!

I disagree, My E3110 took 1.3875 to hit 4GHz.

The downside to overclocking is aggravation at a failed OC when you are just a few Mhz from your goal!

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: Gillbot

Originally posted by: gersson
THe 45nm CPUs OC very well with little voltage change.
I'm doing 3.4 @ 1.2volts!

I disagree, My E3110 took 1.3875 to hit 4GHz.

The downside to overclocking is aggravation at a failed OC when you are just a few Mhz from your goal!

you have very different goals

yours was to hit 4GHz (or as high MHz as possible within some reason) stable no matter what

his was to go as high as 1.2v would take him stable


Of course I also think gersson is a little crazy: he's got some of the best heatsinks currently available in the TRUE and the S1 for his CPU and GPU respectively, and he has borderline jet engines in the 3K Ultra Kaze strapped to them, and he's promoting staying away from bleeding edge...

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles

Originally posted by: Gillbot

Originally posted by: gersson
THe 45nm CPUs OC very well with little voltage change.
I'm doing 3.4 @ 1.2volts!

I disagree, My E3110 took 1.3875 to hit 4GHz.

The downside to overclocking is aggravation at a failed OC when you are just a few Mhz from your goal!

you have very different goals

yours was to hit 4GHz (or as high MHz as possible within some reason) stable no matter what

his was to go as high as 1.2v would take him stable


Of course I also think gersson is a little crazy: he's got some of the best heatsinks currently available in the TRUE and the S1 for his CPU and GPU respectively, and he has borderline jet engines in the 3K Ultra Kaze strapped to them, and he's promoting staying away from bleeding edge...

Im sorry whats wrong with bleeding edge?
http://i125.photobucket.com/al...3/aigomorla/Wprime.jpg

And i betcha my hardware will outlast all of yours.

2 things play active roles on your cpu's life.

1. Voltage, Wolfdales expecially, they think voltage is crack. You give it enough crack yeah, it will go crazy high, but like the downside it will also KILL your processor.

2. Heat, i remember an intel engineer once quote that by reducing the overall temps on your processor 10C, you effectively double the life of it. Also i dont intend on keeping this chip more then 2-3 yrs TOPS, thats if neha comes out very poorly. Most likely wont last 2 yrs.

So when my cpu loads @ 40 while most of you people probably loads there[btw if i get a remount done it will probably load sub 40], but @ idle stays much cooler thanks to the properties of water, who wants to go timeline with me?

And ram, Voltage and heat plays almost the same roles.
If you get a Chip with Micron D9's yeah those are the same as wolfdales. They love voltage, and after a while zap. Lost 3 pairs of tracers, i dont recomend voltage higher then 1.95 with active cooling.

 

[LittleNemoNES]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles

Originally posted by: Gillbot

Originally posted by: gersson
THe 45nm CPUs OC very well with little voltage change.
I'm doing 3.4 @ 1.2volts!

I disagree, My E3110 took 1.3875 to hit 4GHz.

The downside to overclocking is aggravation at a failed OC when you are just a few Mhz from your goal!

you have very different goals

yours was to hit 4GHz (or as high MHz as possible within some reason) stable no matter what

his was to go as high as 1.2v would take him stable


Of course I also think gersson is a little crazy: he's got some of the best heatsinks currently available in the TRUE and the S1 for his CPU and GPU respectively, and he has borderline jet engines in the 3K Ultra Kaze strapped to them, and he's promoting staying away from bleeding edge...

hehe
alright, alright you caught me -- I just got lazy and stayed @ 3.4GHz. I'll pick up the ball maybe this weekend and try to go for a higher OC.

THe Ultra Kazes are LOUD AS HELL -- as you mentioned. Good thing I'm using THIS to keep them under raps. At 2k RPM they're pretty quiet.

aigomorla your post kind of sounds like a call out...

 

[M1A]

He knows his stuff so he can.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: Twsmit
There are always risks when overclocking, such as instability and wearing out components. I wouldn't be too worried about breaking your hardware but would advise you to keep your expectations low and a target budget in mind. A lot of OCers spend big money to get the last bit of performance for their benchmarks.

Buying a $200 CPU and adding on a $50 heatsink to get an extra 200mhz is not very cost efficient, so that is a choice you will have to make. Likewise buying $80 ram at DDR800 speed or some ridiculously fast $200 ram for extra overclock headroom. Those choices are up to you and IMO should be your primary concerns, not so much instability.

If you want to do this the easy and cheap way, but the right components and expect to get 2 or 3 speed grades over stock ie. take a 2.8ghz to 3.2ghz and call it a day and be happy. However if you want to spend a little more cash and devote more time tweaking and stress testing, getting a beefy heatsink, better ram, better mobo etc.... will net you better performance for your games but at the cost of dollars and the time getting it stable.

naw, you can get relatively cheap components these days and crank up that oc! ip35-e is often around $70AR at newegg, $30 will net you 2x1gb of 4-4-4-12 pc6400, $120 gets you an e4500, and $20 get's you an arctic cooling freezer pro cpu hsf. I would hardly call any of that "expensive", but you would not be out of line expecting a very high oc with that system.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: gersson


aigomorla your post kind of sounds like a call out...

Well if you guys dont give the proper answer to his question, and just say oh no dont do this, and keep it here, without telling him why i get kinda annoyed even. Also the let me straighten the term "bleeding edge".

Here is what wiki says about bleeding edge:
Bleeding edge is a term that refers to technology that is so new (and thus, presumably, not perfected) that the user is required to risk reductions in stability and productivity in order to use it. It also refers to the tendency of the latest technology to be extremely expensive.

Bleeding edge is the most fun i'll have on any rig. The best hardware does make a big difference. My definition of a proper bleeding edge machine:

Bleeding edge is expensive, it requires uber cooling, uber hardware, and uber system specs.

Basically the cheapest part in your computer better be the fans, heatsink, and ram (thanks to price drops).

if someone tells me dont do this, i like to answer Y? Y cant i do this, what will happen. Usually no one really knows so i have to find it out myself. Like yes a wolfdale will die @ 1.5Vcore + for long term, and a Yorkfield will probably suffer the same fate since its 2 dies.

So if you keep those 2 things in check, expecially the heat aspect. Bleeding edge machines will last longer then you need/require it.

Actually i'll lose to one person, and thats I Dont Care, cuz he's running his cpu in the sub degree's. :T

:]


dont take any offense gersson, there is non directed at you.

Also the Kaze's yes there FREAKEN LOUD! Fan Controller FTW! but they are one of the best static fans you can get. I have 3 on my PA and absolutely love them.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: BigMoosey74

Originally posted by: jjsole
I've never had a cpu fail prematurely because of overclocking, and the intel c2d's allow users to be pretty aggressive.

What do you mean by prematurely...? 5 years...10 years? I am curious how long a CPU lasts if it is OCd 24/7 compared to how long it would last at stock settings. Have you ever had a CPU die that was OCd?

To simplify and add to the topic, higher voltages and their consequences are the downside of overclocking. The more wear and tear you put your hardware through the shorter life span you are giving it. CPUs can last a really really long time before they die. I use to work at a place that was using P3 CPUs for everyday use and they still are using them to this day.

I think as long as you are in the specified voltage range given by a manufacturer and have a good cooling setup to stay around and below 60C at full tilt, you are overclocking fairly safe. For a CPU that is. My temperature and voltage comments definitely apply to other hardware as well but they will have different temperature tolerations

I've never had a cpu fail for any reason and I've overclocked everything I've owned for the past 10 years (including dells at work ). I've killed mobos, psu's, gpu's, etc but cpus seem to be pretty sturdy.