Is Overclocking...Over-rated?

[cebalrai]

No overclocking is NOT over rated. If its a gaming PC you'll get real world noticeable performance improvements with a faster cpu. My fps goes up by around 20-35% in some games.

I don't see how this is possible. Looking at benchmarks it's clear that fps in games is almost entirely dependent on the GPU. The CPU just doesn't make enough difference that an overclock could give that kind of jump (unless you're playing on 800x600 res for some reason perhaps).

 

[(sic)Klown12]

I don't see how this is possible. Looking at benchmarks it's clear that fps in games is almost entirely dependent on the GPU. The CPU just doesn't make enough difference that an overclock could give that kind of jump (unless you're playing on 800x600 res for some reason perhaps).

Average and maximum framerates might not show much difference, but upping CPU speed does increase the minimum framerates(even in GPU dependent games like Crysis and Just Cause 2). Smoothing out those dips will make the game feel so much more fluid that the little effort it takes is well worth it.

 

[Avalon]

what do I really gain going from 3.3 (3.7 turboboost) GHz to say a, 4.4 GHz overclock?

I don't wanna know how much my benchmark score will increase...I wanna know why my HUMAN EYE will be able to recognize in any processing increase...?

A 29%-33% boost in single thread performance (theoretical). In applications limited by this, yes, you will notice.

 

[Bartman39]

Was only a few dollars more and I didn't have to OC it...came from the factory that way, so was is it REALLY OC'd?

:sneaky:

Yes because there is a standard spec for those cards and they found what we the OC`rs already know that there are better yields than just the reg standard specs and people will pay for them... Awhile back I had bought an XFX 5770HD but it was the higher clocked version and it would OC like crazy so bought another and crossfired them and both were OC`d way beyond what others were getting with standard spec cards...

And as most have stated, OC'ing the GPU bears more performance in a game than does the CPU....

aigomorla answered this and quite well... I found there was a big jump from using the 5770HD`s in crossfire when I went from a Ph II 925 X4 @3750mhz to an I7 920 @4.0Ghz... So the cpu theory is not quite what you think and for sure when it comes to using more than 1 video card... Also lower end cpu`s can still bottleneck the system...

 

[Vic Vega]

I had zero plans to overclock when I built this PC.

After assembly I went into the bios and changed the multiplier from 17 to 20. This bumped me from 3400MHz to 4000Mhz. I changed no other settings.

The PC has been running flawlessly since day one. I haven't been back in the bios or done any tweaks since.

How does this PC perform stock? I have no idea. I've literally never used it day to day at stock speeds. I even forget it's overclocked.

:thumbsup:

 

[rbk123]

If your system doesn't benefit from overclocking then you bought too much processor and spent more money than you needed. If you'd have bought a cheaper CPU and then overclocked it to the point you are now stock, you'd have saved yourself some dough.

Alternatively, you have paid for insurance against the future. Overclocking would appear to not benefit you now, but 2 years from now you will benefit from it and save yourself upgrade costs (if you can resist the upgrade itch...).

 

[rgallant]

hold that question for two years when your system is up against those up and coming systems \ games. seeing how your 2600k chip is state of the art and has a high factory clock.

but for now I 'd say load up games -[not benches]armda II\OA [3\4 max] , metro 2033 ,stalker cop w\complete mod , max out all the way the in game settings[1920x1080] -turn the 2600 turbo off , down clock your card to spec.,[732] see what fps you get , then try it @ 4.8 ,card at 850 , see if it does anything better.

 

[blastingcap]

overclocking is ok

overvolting is overrated because you suck down more power to deliver that higher performance, which costs money for electricity and raises heat and noise and lowers the lifespan of the part unless you watercool it down to the normal temperatures... but watercooling costs money too! So you might as well just get a faster chip in the first place, unless it's unreasonably priced or something.

 

[Rifter]

Not over rated at all. I noticed a large differnce in minimum framerates/dips. Games felt smoother overall and when famerates did drop down it was not as noticable or for a long a time. Also a huge improvement in encoding times.

 

[Acanthus]

Makes a rather dramatic difference in the games i play.

Grand Theft Auto 4, Civilization 5, Supreme Commander : FA

It also dramatically increases video encoding performance when im ripping blu-rays to my HD library.

 

[a123456]

I guess it depends on what you do with your computer and what other parts are in your computer. For some people, especially encoders, it's a huge gain.

For other people, who play most GPU-bound games, it might offer basically no extra value.

I used to overclock and then realized I was severely GPU bound with the games that I played. Big RTS games tend to use more CPU, for example. It's pretty easy to wiggle your clocks and play your normal games and see what happens with your fps/smoothness. I also stopped encoding. After a while, I realized I was just wasting power so I moved to undervolting at stock clocks instead and things have been great.

I may OC in the future if need be but currently no point for what I personally do.

 

[StrangerGuy]

For me, since the ~$100 basic boards are already good overclockers it simply ludicrous to spend an extra $200 for a "premium" board that at best gives an extra 200-300MHz when I can spend the same $200 on a better GPU that provides a ton more better gaming experience.

 

[ljtatej]

I bought my 2600K processor two months ago even though I had a Q9650 @ 4Ghz. I even said earlier that I would skip this generation, but got bit by one of those nasty upgrading bugs that happens to me from time to time. Just at stock speed I saw a 20-30 fps improvement in the games I play and it was smooth as butter. Will I OC... most definitely, but right now it is not needed.

 

[sm625]

If you can get 20-30% more speed from a simple set-it-and-forget-it overclock, then it is stupid not to do it. If you OC so much that you need to keep an eye on temperatures, and system dust, etc, then that probably isnt worth the trouble.

 

[Necc]

Upgraded from a E5200@3.9Ghz to a 2500K, the E5200 was getting old so it needed the oc, my new 2500k doesn't need any oc, im getting 60+fps in most games iplay, probably I'll oc it when ineed to, and it start showing its age.

 

[Zap]

Anomaly1964, if you think overclocking is overrated, then you just don't understand. :\

 

[d4a2n0k]

What has happened to Anandtech? Its gone from an enthusiast site to an underclocking/undervolting cheapskate site.

 

[exar333]

What has happened to Anandtech? Its gone from an enthusiast site to an underclocking/undervolting cheapskate site.

OK...

 

[Acanthus]

overclocking is ok

overvolting is overrated because you suck down more power to deliver that higher performance, which costs money for electricity and raises heat and noise and lowers the lifespan of the part unless you watercool it down to the normal temperatures... but watercooling costs money too! So you might as well just get a faster chip in the first place, unless it's unreasonably priced or something.

Point me to the 5ghz core i7s please.

 

[Nintendesert]

So if over-clocking is over-rated then that must mean buying newer higher clocked chips is equally as over-rated? It's free performance and everything that makes use of the CPU sees benefits, even gaming. Which as mentioned earlier makes a huge impact on the minimum framerate, which is much more important than the maximum. This thread topic really boggles my mind to be honest.

 

[lol123]

What are the real risks of higher than specified frequencies on CPU stability and lifetime? Obviously if the processor is too hot that will affect stability (and possibly lifetime), but if it's cooled down to a normal range, might there still be an increased risk of damage or data corruption?

 

[Acanthus]

What are the real risks of higher than specified frequencies on CPU stability and lifetime? Obviously if the processor is too hot that will affect stability (and possibly lifetime), but if it's cooled down to a normal range, might there still be an increased risk of damage or data corruption?

Too much voltage can cause a phenomenon known as electromigration. This can occur at any temperature. A gross oversimplification would be just saying that the transistors wear out more quickly over time.

There's also the more obvious risk of jamming obscenely high voltages through a chip and killing it via direct damage, but i think that one is obvious to everyone.

If you keep the voltages of the chip within the stock range (you can look up the range specified for specific chips on intels website) and you overclock the frequency of the chip to the maximum stable speed you can achieve, there is virtually zero chance of you damaging the chip.

Here is an example of an Intel spec sheet for the 2600K
http://download.intel.com/design/processor/datashts/324641.pdf

 

[T101]

I generally only overclock my CPU when I notice it is starting to be the bottleneck for gaming. Which at stock speed, the 2600k is not yet. I would not say overclocking is overrated. It is merely a means to push some more life out of the system when it is getting long in the tooth, at least for me. For some people it is about the e-pen factor..

 

[s1njin]

Too much voltage can cause a phenomenon known as electromigration. This can occur at any temperature. A gross oversimplification would be just saying that the transistors wear out more quickly over time.

There's also the more obvious risk of jamming obscenely high voltages through a chip and killing it via direct damage, but i think that one is obvious to everyone.

If you keep the voltages of the chip within the stock range (you can look up the range specified for specific chips on intels website) and you overclock the frequency of the chip to the maximum stable speed you can achieve, there is virtually zero chance of you damaging the chip.

Here is an example of an Intel spec sheet for the 2600K
http://download.intel.com/design/processor/datashts/324641.pdf

Interesting. I'm running a 2500k proc @ 1.27-1.28 VCore OC'd to 4.5 Ghz. I'm not using offset, just straight manual voltage at all times (so my VCore doesn't drift down when its idling at 1.6 Ghz, but it also doesn't overcompensate for my OC). Temps sit right around 61 C under 3 hours of Prime95.

Given you seem perfectly comfortable running 1.4, I'm going to assume my mild OC should be relatively 'safe' .... ????

 

[Acanthus]

Interesting. I'm running a 2500k proc @ 1.27-1.28 VCore OC'd to 4.5 Ghz. I'm not using offset, just straight manual voltage at all times (so my VCore doesn't drift down when its idling at 1.6 Ghz, but it also doesn't overcompensate for my OC). Temps sit right around 61 C under 3 hours of Prime95.

Given you seem perfectly comfortable running 1.4, I'm going to assume my mild OC should be relatively 'safe' .... ????

I would say so, given my experience.