Hum...the cost of overclocking VS the real deal??

[BoboKatt]

Just a thought.... I recently purchased a Neo2 Plat board and an AMD64 3200 (939 Winch core) chip and then realized that if I really wanted to push the oc I would need to replace the crap no name 1GIG of pc3200 ram I had and get a better PS. Thus I went out and got some wicked Geil Ultra RAM and with that I was able to push my rig to 2400-2500 MHz and beyond and stable -- although it does require more power and produces more heat. This resulted in spending more money for aftermarket cooling and a top of the line PS. Now if you are following this... the cost of the 3200 plus the new RAM to get it to run at 2400-2500 MHZ and the extra cooling and better PS was MORE than... you guessed it.... an AMD64 4000 (which would have come with the 1Meg cache). Now why the hell did I do that??

Hum wow the whole point of overclocking is to save money and actually get something faster for a cheaper price.... I could have probably gotten the 4000 chip and oc?ed that to a slightly higher amount with the cheaper RAM which actually in all honesty allowed me to oc my 3200 to 2400 just that I had to run it at 166 speed with all low times. Anyhow any thoughts on this?

here is an other question... in theory if I am running my AMD64 3200 at 2400 MHZ which is the equivalent of a boxed AMD64 3800, since I am actually running the FSB at 240... and my RAM is doing 1/1 wouldn't my system actually be performing better than that stock CPU as my FSB and thus bandwidth is higher? At least OMG I can justify it that way!! WOOT

Bobo

 

[Yanagi]

Yes. if ram is running 240mhx FSB tyou will perform better @ 2400 than the 4000+. The 512kb extra cache doesnt do that much of a difference.

 

[Duvie]

Well you didn't research!!!! You could have used the cheaper ram....at 2.4ghz you could have ran 10x240 with 166divider and that would have kept the ram in check at 400ddr...2.5ghz would have been a small adjustment above that and the ram with a boost of vdimm may have made it fine....


For most ppl like myself I have had the components for awhile...meaning my enermax 430watt I purchased some time ago (2 years)

So for me I laid down 140 for the chip and 130 for the mobo...I used my ram from 1 year ago and it is fine....At 2.6ghz I am pretty much better then any A64 available and for only 270.....

You can always look at the fact this is an investment and later on the next mobo and cpu upgrade (perhaps an Nforce4/ A64 4000+ 90nm with SS/SOI chip in 3-4 months) ocing combo you will have the sufficient parts to make that work...us enthusiast usually have the parts with some headrroom for the next couple of upgrades.

Yes the 2400mhz should be faster but I believe only because of the ram...FSB isn't like Intels so I don't think this helps like it does in INtel systems. The mem speed is the deciding factor here, so hopefully you are running good cas 2, 1T numbers....

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Yanagi
Yes. if ram is running 240mhx FSB tyou will perform better @ 2400 than the 4000+. The 512kb extra cache doesnt do that much of a difference.

Actually is does do well in certain type of apps (non video editing, computing type of stuff) where the data can fit in the L2 and usually has some repitiveness to it....Really depend on use there...

 

[RickH]

Friend--you have discovered the Over Clocking Fallacy. Nothing in life is free . You can pay for the faster CPU or you can pay for all the "extras" to overclock and hope it works. R

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: RickH
Friend--you have discovered the Over Clocking Fallacy. Nothing in life is free . You can pay for the faster CPU or you can pay for all the "extras" to overclock and hope it works. R

Just to add: You don't always end up paying the same price with the extras, but there are other increased costs all too often:

1) overclocking shortens the lifespan of the CPU. How much varies greatly and depends on how far you push it. Most Overclockers upgrade often enough that this usually isn't an issue

2) overclcoking shortens the lifespan of the Motherboard. This is a much more common issue, but it also depends on Motherboard manufacturer. IME, MSI is not a good Motherboard manufacturer for Overcloking, they'll overclock fine for awhile, then suddenly die. Run them at Default speeds though and they'll last for years.

3) other components are susceptible to shortened lifespans as well, including AGP cards, PCI cards, and RAM. With Locked bus speeds these days AGP and PCI cards are pretty much safe though.

I'm sure the Cadre of Overclockers will dispute these statements, but just beware of these Facts.

 

[Duvie]

I agree with the above...


The other thing to mention is I have kept some of my cpus awhile and even sold them to ppl that have them today and still have them oc'd....

My rule is most things can handle 10% more juice. My cpus with 10% or less vcore and decent temps are still running oc'd today....

I have neever had a board die on me and some I have kept for a year...can't comment on the MSI thing though....MOst of those I believe are still working today but I am not sure all of them are still being overclocked.


Bottom line....If you can't afford to just have something die and say " Oh well that was fun while it latest" then don't play the OC ing game.....

Done intelligently with research of components and knwoing their specs and limits most of these parts will last a very long time....My past parts are proof to me, of just that.

 

[Fingers]

Or if you are like me you don't let yourself spend more money just to try to overclock further. I just take what I get and anything extra is just the icing on the cake. Only exception is if it's a OEM CPU I normally buy a decent heatsink otherwise I normally use the stock cooler and you can get some suprising results with them.

 

[Fingers]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: RickH
Friend--you have discovered the Over Clocking Fallacy. Nothing in life is free . You can pay for the faster CPU or you can pay for all the "extras" to overclock and hope it works. R

Just to add: You don't always end up paying the same price with the extras, but there are other increased costs all too often:

1) overclocking shortens the lifespan of the CPU. How much varies greatly and depends on how far you push it. Most Overclockers upgrade often enough that this usually isn't an issue

2) overclcoking shortens the lifespan of the Motherboard. This is a much more common issue, but it also depends on Motherboard manufacturer. IME, MSI is not a good Motherboard manufacturer for Overcloking, they'll overclock fine for awhile, then suddenly die. Run them at Default speeds though and they'll last for years.

3) other components are susceptible to shortened lifespans as well, including AGP cards, PCI cards, and RAM. With Locked bus speeds these days AGP and PCI cards are pretty much safe though.

I'm sure the Cadre of Overclockers will dispute these statements, but just beware of these Facts.

About the MSI thing. I can agree to a certain degree. I have only had a few MSI boards and they have had the highest failure rate of any board I have owned including cheap boards that come with emachine PC's. I always hear great things about them but they have just about put their final nail in the coffen. Doubtfull as to wheter or not I will try them again.

 

[PhoenixOrion]

but the knowledge you gained about the limits of your hardware = PRICELESS