The funny thing about OCing...

[Mrvile]

Can one really notice the difference between a 3500+ running at 2.2ghz and one running at 2.6ghz while lightly using the desktop (internet, virus scanning) and gaming (CS:S)? I mean I used to have my 3500+ run at like 2.6ghz (306 x 8.5) on like 1.53v, but I just pulled her back to 2.2ghz (315fsb x 7) on like 1.24v and I don't feel a difference at all in terms of opening firefox windows and whatnot. So is it really necessary, besides just for bragging rights?

-V

 

[HannibalTheCannibal]

I think its a matter of pride. I think a 20% overclock is worth it and noticeable. anything more you squeeze out is a matter of bragging rights.
I just think its cool because it feels like you cheated AMD out of something. ie paying for 2.2ghz and getting 2.6. Getting one over on big brother, maybe.

I dont know

 

[Koyanisquatsi]

Bah! You'll get the itch again and clock that baby back up. Guarantee it.

 

[sxr7171]

I noticed a difference in opening Office apps and even in Firefox rendering speeds. Granted I didn't use my machine at the stock 2000Mhz for more than a few days and then I tried 2.2 Mhz for a day or two and then let it rip to 2.6Mhz. All I know is that my machine flies now. I don't remember that feeling when I started at 2.0GHz.

 

[Mrvile]

Well she doesn't get over 40C while running CS:S, which is the one nice thing about 1.24v

Seriously, though, I'm a logical person and usually won't let emotion make my decisions. If it stays the same, I'll run her at 2.2 and leave it at that. Now as for Mr. 6800GT though...

 

[Lord Banshee]

I noticeed going from 1800->2300

 

[DAPUNISHER]

I run DC Projects so the benefits of a healthy overclock of 400mhz are immediately noticable, work gets done and returned significantly faster. Over a month's time the difference in productivity is huge, now think of the difference over a full year. It also benefits many users A/V encoding needs, and gets some over the hump in very CPU dependent titles such as WoW. A64 performance scales particularly well since the mem controller come along for the ride, so while you may be doing nothing that benefits from it, you could be, and you would even be doing your fellow humans a good turn by running a DC project

 

[CMar]

I noticed I difference going fro my stock XP 1800 speed of 1533 to 2100, but only in applications that require it, like when I use Photoshop and Illustrator. Working with gradients and filters that would take, say, 10 seconds to render now take 6-8 sec. Doesn?t seem like much, but it adds up when you do multiple actions.
Also multitasking goes quicker.
I can scan, print and do edit to an image at the same time now.

 

[VirtualLarry]

It all depends on what your tasks are. CPU-intensive things, like gaming (unless you are video-card limited), and things like media-playback and media-encoding will definately show a difference. Ordinary desktop business apps and web browsers will show very little difference. In fact, I see little difference in terms of Firefox speed, between my Athlon XP at 1Ghz compared to 1.67Ghz. I do notice a slight difference when it is underclocked to 500Mhz, but the performance is still acceptable. However, DVD playback would occasionally skip at 500Mhz. (Btw, Firefox performance is far more affected by the amount of RAM that you have than CPU speed, it eats RAM like no tomorrow sometimes. I recommend over 512MB.)

But the different between a 2.2 and 2.6Ghz AMD64 chip, while notable in benchmarks, may not be noticable at all in your everyday apps. I would probably leave it at stock, unless you were gaming or media-encoding.

 

[stevty2889]

I really havn't seen any major noticable differance's between running at stock speed, and running at overclocked speeds, but just can't seem to bring myself to run at stock anyway. Well it does make a differnace on my HTPC when doing video encoding, improves times pretty nicely, but for most things, including games, I don't see any noticable differance.