Is Overclocking...Over-rated?

[lol123]

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

Thank you for your answer, that was very interesting. Howerver I'm not sure if I'm reading that spec sheet right, are the numbers I should be looking at the VID Range in Table 7-5? Which I assume would mean that everything up to a voltage of 1.52V is within specifications?

 

[s1njin]

I would say so, given my experience.

Thanks for the follow up !

 

[Seero]

See my rig below...

Neither my CPU or GPU (well it came over clocked from EVGA) have been overclocked since I built this PC...

With the new bios and the 2500k, I know OC'ing is supposed to be really easy but...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...?

It is over-rated. First, you will need extra voltage for extra speed, but those extra speed is expensive on voltage. It really isn't as free as it seems.

Second, no games should need 4 Ghz to run, at least it shouldn't be as developers won't OC their system to test coding, meaning everything should be fine with 3.3-3.4 Ghz. Beyond 4 is nothing best waste of electricity.

Having said all that, higher clock does offset bottlenecks caused by other component, so in theory, the higher clock, the better assuming there are bottlenecks somewhere within the system. Also, since software developers tend to release their code without fully optimize it (probably under guns), higher clock does bring performance up to where the software should be. For example, new games are often poorly optimized and master setup ended up with subpar frame rates. While you shouldn't need SLI 580s or Xfire 6990s along with 5Ghz CPU to have a playable FPS, it is often the only way to get those FPS ahead of others.

However, master overclockers don't just blindly aim at 5ghz, but find the sweet spot so that the CPU runs at a maximum speed, minimum voltage and minimum noise. That means, with the same price tag, one can get more out of their purchase, that is the real spirit of overclocking (Although most ended up with a setup 2x or 3x more $$ and hours of labor just to get there).

 

[piasabird]

After you purchase special CPU COOLERS and fan controllers and extra fans, maybe you could just purchase a faster CPU and break even. Maybe you can get a little bit of a boost, but I would rather not bother. I figure I dont have the money to waste.

The way I look at it, is that people that overclock are the ones that end up RMA'ing all their damaged gear and raising the prices for everyone else. It can be more of a nuisance than it is worth. This is my personal opinion. I think all motherboard and processors should be locked to stop this abuse.

Just take responsibility for what you damage. Luckily most new motherboards have built in overheating protection. But it is not fail-proof.

 

[drizek]

My CPU cooler was $20, and it is quieter than the stock cooler. So its a win win.

And the "little bit of a boost" is an overclock from 2.8GHz to 3.6GHz. That's a 30% boost, and I have a quieter system now, and it uses less energy when idle. And it runs cooler, which means it could last longer(not that I care, I am constantly looking for an excuse to buy new hardware).

 

[VirtualLarry]

The way I look at it, is that people that overclock are the ones that end up RMA'ing all their damaged gear and raising the prices for everyone else. It can be more of a nuisance than it is worth. This is my personal opinion. I think all motherboard and processors should be locked to stop this abuse.

That may be true of some people, but hopefully not the majority.

You make a better point that "overclock is stealing", than my thread to that effect. My idea was the OCing is stealing from the mfg, your idea is that it's stealing from the pockets of other enthusiasts, due to rising costs from returns.

 

[aigomorla]

After you purchase special CPU COOLERS and fan controllers and extra fans, maybe you could just purchase a faster CPU and break even. Maybe you can get a little bit of a boost, but I would rather not bother.

mmm

I bet u my cooling system alone costs more then my core PC hardware alone.




Seriously tho its all on objective.
I can pull sub 45C load temps on all the top gpu out there provided there is a waterblock for it.

This isnt possible on Air unless i live in the north pole.. or my pc is outside in the snow.

 

[Acanthus]

After you purchase special CPU COOLERS and fan controllers and extra fans, maybe you could just purchase a faster CPU and break even. Maybe you can get a little bit of a boost, but I would rather not bother. I figure I dont have the money to waste.

The way I look at it, is that people that overclock are the ones that end up RMA'ing all their damaged gear and raising the prices for everyone else. It can be more of a nuisance than it is worth. This is my personal opinion. I think all motherboard and processors should be locked to stop this abuse.

Just take responsibility for what you damage. Luckily most new motherboards have built in overheating protection. But it is not fail-proof.

Once again, point me to the $500 5ghz core i7s and i'll gladly purchase one and use the stock cooler.

 

[Arg Clin]

Overrated? I think it is.

Speed increase can be noticeable - certainly - but there's just always that nagging feeling of potential instability that just doesn't make it worth it for me. I've seen quite my share of O/C'ed systems degrade over time to stay away from it.

I can see the appeal in the challenge that lies within O/C. I have taken a different route though, for me the challenge is to go as quiet as possible which effectively rules out O/C btw.

I haven't done long term O/C since my K7 500 @ 650. It was fun and stable, but the cooler sounded like an airplane

 

[aigomorla]

OK

First off i am gonna separate the Overclockers into 2 catigories.

Catigory 1: Budget minded Ocers.
These are the guys who get what they can afford and RAMP them up to what they couldnt afford, or isnt available. They will push the chip hard because if it dies, who cares, it was so cheap to begin with they could buy 3-4 cheap chips vs 1 uber chip.

They go HA while u wasted 1000 dollars on a 980X u could of gotten a SB 2600K for nearly the same speed at a fraction of the cost!

Catigory 2: Sky is the limit Ocers.
These guys have more money then brains.
Top tier hardware is the bases they start, and they just dont shoot for the sky, they go after the moon.

They go HA 2600K only has 4 cores i want 6! or even 12! *man grunt*




Now you can just tell by the two catigories what benefit brings what.
It totally depends on where u fall under.

If your just OCing to be cool, well, then you missed why you need a faster computer.

 

[s1njin]

Well, I can add a little to this.

I've been a IT Manager for well over a decade, a PC enthusiast since 86. I have never - NEVER - OC'd anything since I've touched a PC many many years ago.

A couple months ago I poked my head out of Apple's walled garden (which is comfortable and easy btw) and built a new Windows box for the simple fact that gaming on my 360 and PS3 was getting stale. The graphics can't touch a PC, you can't MMORPG, etc.

So while speccin'g a system I found that for 20 bucks more I could get a 2500k vs. a locked 2500. 20 bucks? Are you kidding me? That's wipe my ass money so why the hell not?

So I of course I had some stumbling blocks. My first ASUS board was the P8P67 LE, which overclocks for garbage b/c you can't control a whole lot. Lesson learned, so I stepped up to the regular P8P67 board.

My OC is strictly 'value' minded. How much of a nice bump can I get w/o stressing my system too hard? That's what I went for. That's all I really want to go for. I have no interest in seeing if my particular chip can OC to 4.8 or 5.0 Ghz. No interest whatsoever. When I need that kind of grunt I'll probably swap boards and chips again. But for now, the OC is relatively tame and my VCore is relatively low at 1.270v.

I invested many hours reading many guides in order to educate myself. I learned a lot. My OC is less stressful on my chip than letting ASUS manage it on autopilot (the board on Auto VCore wants to pump 1.325 into the chip for a 4.5 OC). I feel its definitely less wear and tear than hitting the 'Turbo' button and feeling like a hero.

Was it overrated or worth it? I have no idea if I have a tangible benefit on my rig - to be honest it was already pretty damned fast. However, if a chip company is going to offer a sanctioned unlocked proc, for 20 bucks why the hell not?

I'm fairly certain I'm going to be in good shape for a lot longer b/c I OC'd my chip. Which, in the end makes me sleep better at night w/ my investment. So, in that regard I feel it was VERY worth it, though as stated it may not be tangible at the moment.

 

[Diogenes2]

Overrated? I think it is.

Speed increase can be noticeable - certainly - but there's just always that nagging feeling of potential instability that just doesn't make it worth it for me. I've seen quite my share of O/C'ed systems degrade over time to stay away from it.

I can see the appeal in the challenge that lies within O/C. I have taken a different route though, for me the challenge is to go as quiet as possible which effectively rules out O/C btw.

I haven't done long term O/C since my K7 500 @ 650. It was fun and stable, but the cooler sounded like an airplane

I've always said if it's really ' OVER-clocked ' it's broke ...

I prefer to say I have Maximized my CPU ..

Intel does the same thing by taking the same chip, and locking it down at different speeds ( ... and adjusting vcore as needed ), then selling the Maximized ships for more $$$...

 

[Seero]

Overrated? I think it is.

Speed increase can be noticeable - certainly - but there's just always that nagging feeling of potential instability that just doesn't make it worth it for me. I've seen quite my share of O/C'ed systems degrade over time to stay away from it.

I can see the appeal in the challenge that lies within O/C. I have taken a different route though, for me the challenge is to go as quiet as possible which effectively rules out O/C btw.

I haven't done long term O/C since my K7 500 @ 650. It was fun and stable, but the cooler sounded like an airplane

Challenge is one thing, stability is another. While it was true that OC implies instability and/or premature deaths of parts, consider these. I have systems that were scrapped due to age. I have no systems that died due to OC. I have lots of fans. I have killed lots of PSUs. I have seen mobos die under normal use. I have seem drives die under normal use. I lots of old video cards that just won't die. I OCed a 8800GTS until it is not stable, meaning scrambled graphics (artifacts) than back down 15 Hz. Try to utilize it as much as i can, until it is not even worth it to be plugged into main systems so I have it on folding 24/7 for 2 years and it still won't die! Many 8800GTS complain about it dying without OC. Why?

Once you started with OC, assuming you don't simply clock it mindlessly, you will learn how to properly maintain a system, both hardware and software level. It began with small window tweak and mild OC, and then people will eventually go into different ways. Some aim for silent build, some aim for suck looking build, some aim for least maintenance, some obviously love speed. Like s1njin said, it isn't about the final clock, but the journey towards it. At the end, some more hertz, lots of knowledge, and a good night sleep feeling you have just got something out of nothing.

Most who OC test their system with stress programs for hours, some do it for over 24 hours to ensure heat is radiated properly to ensure stability. They know where the boundaries of their system are because they have touched it, tried it, and tested it. They can tell you what their idle and max temp is without starting their PC. Some even know the frequency, voltage of CPU as well as the timing and voltage of RAMs. Their system is by far more stable than most people who buy and assemble their computer. Some can even fix problems for others simply because they have learned so much through the process of OC.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Once you started with OC, assuming you don't simply clock it mindlessly, you will learn how to properly maintain a system, both hardware and software level. It began with small window tweak and mild OC, and then people will eventually go into different ways. Some aim for silent build, some aim for suck looking build, some aim for least maintenance, some obviously love speed. Like s1njin said, it isn't about the final clock, but the journey towards it. At the end, some more hertz, lots of knowledge, and a good night sleep feeling you have just got something out of nothing.

Most who OC test their system with stress programs for hours, some do it for over 24 hours to ensure heat is radiated properly to ensure stability. They know where the boundaries of their system are because they have touched it, tried it, and tested it. They can tell you what their idle and max temp is without starting their PC. Some even know the frequency, voltage of CPU as well as the timing and voltage of RAMs. Their system is by far more stable than most people who buy and assemble their computer. Some can even fix problems for others simply because they have learned so much through the process of OC.

This is true. Overclocking is a kind of tweaking journey, not just a destination.

I used to visit overclockers.com regularly, and when the news broke about the PII-300 SL2W8 S-spec code, being 450Mhz parts that were re-labeled as 300Mhz parts, I knew that I wanted to own one of those chips. I found one at a computer show, and yes, it was easy as pie to overclock, as I also owned an Abit BX6r2 motherboard. Those were definately the days. I would probably still own and use that board today, if I hadn't fried the VRMs several years later, by screwing up a Tualatin slotket mod and shorting things out. I had an ATI Rage Pro AGP 2MB video card back then too, for 3D stuff (emulators!), and I ran it at 100Mhz AGP bus speed, and then overclocked the RAM and GPU to 100Mhz each too, so it all ran at a nearly synchronous speed. It was markedly faster that way.

These days, I still overclock, but not excessively.

 

[skipsneeky2]

intels turbo mode is sorta like a mode of self overclocking so if intel puts that into their cpus im gonna say overclocking is mainstream now but if you want to keep your pc more then a couple years maybe overclocking isnt a good idea,but thats up to you and if your a constant upgrader

 

[Acanthus]

intels turbo mode is sorta like a mode of self overclocking so if intel puts that into their cpus im gonna say overclocking is mainstream now but if you want to keep your pc more then a couple years maybe overclocking isnt a good idea,but thats up to you and if your a constant upgrader

This is really a myth. If you don't raise the voltage on your CPU beyond intels specs it doesn't shorten the life of the CPU by any measurable amount.

My other PC is a Xeon X3220 (Core 2 Quad Q6600 equivalent) and it has been running 24/7 since the X3220 G0 launch. ~February '07.

Since the day I recieved the chip in the mail, it has been running at 400x9 3.6ghz @ 1.5v. It still runs at that voltage today. Two parts have changed in the PC since then. A graphics upgrade to a Radeon 4890, and the Corsair HX520 died and we replaced with a Corsair CX430 while Corsair RMA'd it.

 

[skipsneeky2]

acan true your luck mary vary but i find my i7 950 at stock for me is fast enough if it bottlenecks my gtx580 who will know but performance for the games i play is good and thats what counts perhaps when bf3 comes out ill find something in my system to bitch about being slow so ill have a reason to upgrade lol def got rid of the impulsive purchase disorder onboard sound is fine for me the lack of ssd is fine who needs 8gb i only really need 4gb right now lol

 

[Jacky60]

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).

Well that's because you haven't played games that are both cpu AND gpu limited. Unfortunately you're just plain wrong and I can't be bothered to explain why. If playing a game and overclocking the cpu increases performance by 30% what does that tell you?

 

[Arg Clin]

Challenge is one thing, stability is another. While it was true that OC implies instability and/or premature deaths of parts, consider these. I have systems that were scrapped due to age. I have no systems that died due to OC. I have lots of fans. I have killed lots of PSUs. I have seen mobos die under normal use. I have seem drives die under normal use. I lots of old video cards that just won't die. I OCed a 8800GTS until it is not stable, meaning scrambled graphics (artifacts) than back down 15 Hz. Try to utilize it as much as i can, until it is not even worth it to be plugged into main systems so I have it on folding 24/7 for 2 years and it still won't die! Many 8800GTS complain about it dying without OC. Why?

Once you started with OC, assuming you don't simply clock it mindlessly, you will learn how to properly maintain a system, both hardware and software level. It began with small window tweak and mild OC, and then people will eventually go into different ways. Some aim for silent build, some aim for suck looking build, some aim for least maintenance, some obviously love speed. Like s1njin said, it isn't about the final clock, but the journey towards it. At the end, some more hertz, lots of knowledge, and a good night sleep feeling you have just got something out of nothing.

Most who OC test their system with stress programs for hours, some do it for over 24 hours to ensure heat is radiated properly to ensure stability. They know where the boundaries of their system are because they have touched it, tried it, and tested it. They can tell you what their idle and max temp is without starting their PC. Some even know the frequency, voltage of CPU as well as the timing and voltage of RAMs. Their system is by far more stable than most people who buy and assemble their computer. Some can even fix problems for others simply because they have learned so much through the process of OC.

OC doesn't necessarily kill your components, and components can die from many reasons other than OC. Often because they are simply poorly made. My point about stability was that every time you get some weird hickup - typically a driver/windows issue - in a non OC'ed system it's usually fairly safe to rule out hardware failure in the beginning. Iwth OC it's different, because it could be the OC going too far. Yes it may have been tested for 24 hours burnin and whatnot - but components sometime do degrade over time.

OC is tapping into the built in headroom in components. Yes binned down chips can bring some sense to OC - although there is no certainty.

At the end of the day, OC isn't the hassle worth for me.

As for it being a journey - that's a little deep for me no seriously, I do see the appeal in it and all the power to those that find amusement in OC. As long as it's presented as such and not as a quick way to more performance.

 

[BababooeyHTJ]

I noticed a pretty big difference in a few games on Lynnfield, with a 2600k I don't know that I would have seen a difference with the same games. Darkplaces, Serious Sam HD, and Fallout New Vegas saw some impressive gains. I'm sure that there were others but those were the only ones that I compared directly.

 

[dpodblood]

To me overclocking is most useful when you are trying to make your aging CPU useful for a little while longer. For instance, right now I have a 2500K, and have not overclocked it. However if I still have the chip in a couple of years I may need to OC it in order to get decent frame-rates. That said, most games these days are GPU limited, with the few exceptions that others have mentioned. For general gaming use CPU overclockings usefulness is somewhat limited. If you are already getting good average/minimum FPS there is no need to overclock. It will make no difference to visuals whatsoever, unless of course it gives you that extra bit of performance you need to dial up the settings from high to extra high

 

[Brakner]

I went from stock to 4.5 with my Asus turbo button ( I know lame ), I then checked Dragon Age 2 with fraps. I ran the same fight with 10+ critters (lots of calculations )in the merchant quarter. My max FPS was about 5% greater ( 107 to 113 ) and I didn't notice any difference in the minimum, I guess it depends on the game.

Edit: It might be that DA:2 uses all 4 cores so it wasn't that noticable of a gain, it might be more if a single core game.

 

[Acanthus]

I went from stock to 4.5 with my usus turbo button ( I know lame ), I then checked Dragon Age 2 with fraps. I ran the same fight with 10+ critters in the merchant quarter. My max FPS was about 5% greater ( 107 to 113 ) and I didn't notice any difference in the minimum, I guess it depends on the game.

It depends entirely on the game. Do the same thing in grand theft auto 4.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Well, I tend to see things like Aigo and VirtualLarry.

I sort of took umbrage at someone's remark that the manufacturers should "lock" their product so you can't "adjust" it. And I see this -- like Larry -- as a "journey" of adjustment -- not a destination.

I'm still in the "planning" stage to grab an i7-2600K. I don't "need" it -- I just "want" it. And it's not much good to me unless I can tweak it.

I've got three OC'd systems sitting here. An old Q6600 @ 3.0 Ghz -- a modest over-clock; a slightly less aged E8600 @ 4.1 (but it was at 4.25 once); my brother's P4 3.4Ghz @ 3.8.

Why is Bro's system here? It's here because he didn't do proper system maintenance, and there were some corrupted OS files -- specifically the graphics driver. HE thought it was a HARDWARE problem -- possibly "premature" death due to an over-clock setting which anyone here would say is "sissy." Even so -- I have to admit, having given him the P4 back in 2007 four years ago -- that old P4 "gits up and goes" for "regular" computing. So . . . I had to repair the OS, save his files, make him feel good.

The old Kentsfield has been running at that 3.0 speed for almost four years now. Shows no signs of going south. Nor does the E8600.

And -- like Aigo said, like others said -- "We who are about to die -- throw away our fortunes on PC parts as we salute overclocking." Or, like the silly housewife in the outlet mall commercial said while holding up a pair of $500 boots and a $4,000 mink-stole: "I saved 40%. . . . I saved 60% . . . I saved 100%!!!"

In that vein, I've ordered and paid for parts, become distracted with something else, changed my mind about something, and stowed them away.

My friend -- who "uses" PC's but made a point to say "I don't BUILD them" -- just got an Dell XPS 7100 (Phenom II x6 1055T), and spent a Grand on the hardware, warranty and service plan. He got -- and gets -- what he paid for. He's a "mainstream user." He's not going to go through the nettle-patch of troubleshooting hardware or managing ten different warranties. That's something I CHOOSE to do.

I'll probably spend $1,400 on building my next system, and I'll take three months to tweak it. In the meantime, my friend had told me the XPS came bundled with 8GB of DDR3, and he was "impressed" with 64-bit OS, even as some have told me they were "irritated" at Win 7. I'm still using VISTA, but it's VISTA-64. That's a dimension of speed improvement that doesn't require OC'ing.

But I was thinking about how my Q6600 eventually gets choked up using 67% of the 4GB. I was thinking about how freaking fast my E8600 runs. And I discovered that the 2x4GB DDR2 RAM kits are still available, having thought they'd long since gone off the reseller radar. ANd -- being an OC purist -- I was thinking I didn't want to fill all four slots, that I'd rather purchase a new kit for $170 than fill the remaining slots for $80.

But in this economy, I've discovered I LIKE holding onto money. The old LGA 775 . . . why spend money on old tech, when I could just bide my time building the Sandy Bridge (or whatever . . . ?) And then -- I remembered. "I saved 100%!!!" I'd bought and put back a spare RAM kit -- not the same "model" as the kit already in the E8600, but the same manufacturer -- with specs pretty much the same.

Could I change all the RAM BIOS settings except the voltage, drop the over-clock by a 150 Mhz for a margin of safety, and put in the new kit -- toward only mild tweaks to put things "back in order?" Yup!

And I was stunned. I'll have to learn to fly my FA-22 all over again. I had to recalibrate my joy-stick. That little old Wolfdale is lightning fast -- and so much faster than it was at the same 4+ Ghz speed.

Do you freaking think . . . . I want the manufacturers . . . to just cater to "mainstream users" and marginalize me from all this FREE excitement by making it impossible to tweak my hard-earned hardware? "They'll never take our FREEE-DOM!!" as Mel Gibson's "Wallace" character said . . . . .

 

[Deanodarlo]

This is really a myth. If you don't raise the voltage on your CPU beyond intels specs it doesn't shorten the life of the CPU by any measurable amount.

My other PC is a Xeon X3220 (Core 2 Quad Q6600 equivalent) and it has been running 24/7 since the X3220 G0 launch. ~February '07.

Since the day I recieved the chip in the mail, it has been running at 400x9 3.6ghz @ 1.5v. It still runs at that voltage today. Two parts have changed in the PC since then. A graphics upgrade to a Radeon 4890, and the Corsair HX520 died and we replaced with a Corsair CX430 while Corsair RMA'd it.

While I believe you that you will probably get a long run out of that CPU at Intel's max voltage, the power usage will be through the roof on that machine. I remember seeing several graphs showing how watts scales with Mhz and voltage. Once you hit a certain point, it skyrockets and is really putting the voltage regulators under some serious stress.

For a Q6600, the sweet spot is around 3.2Ghz. After that, you really have to start ramping up the voltage for each 100Mhz step and in my opinion it's just not worth it given the power draw.

Of course, for extreme overclockers its a sport and they gladly take the watts hit!