True overclock gains

[DanDaMan315]

Just curious if anyone knows how much, for example, I 1gHz overclock on a CPU is actually going to gain the consumer. I have my stuff overclocked and I don't notice a whole lot in using it in a REAL world application.

Like to hear what kind of overclocks people are getting these days and on what CPU's and voltages. And maybe, if you know, what kind of real world gains you are getting from your computer.

 

[soccerballtux]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...um-e2160_14.html#sect0

I run the e2180 at 3.4ghz most of the time, can go to 3.5Ghz, same chip as the e2160 except it has a 10x multiplier instead of 9x. Note in that link the e21x0 at 3.4Ghz exceeds the Core 2 Extreme X6800 at stock speeds. At time of purchase, that X6800 was selling for $999. I bought my e2180 for $90.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...um-e2160_14.html#sect0

I run the e2180 at 3.4ghz most of the time, can go to 3.5Ghz, same chip as the e2160 except it has a 10x multiplier instead of 9x. Note in that link the e21x0 at 3.4Ghz exceeds the Core 2 Extreme X6800 at stock speeds. At time of purchase, that X6800 was selling for $999. I bought my e2180 for $90.

Just about the best answer ever.... heheheh. It can turn a $100 cpu into a $1500 cpu.

 

[jeffw2767602]

I am currently running a Q6600 g0 at 3.6GHz on air cooling with 1.456v. It roughly matches the $1500 qx9770 at stock speeds (3.2GHz) and cost me only $280 at time of purchase (+ $65 for Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme and Fan). It does however use much more power than the qx9770 and the qx9770 can overclock to around 4GHz with good cooling.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Just about the best answer ever.... heheheh. It can turn a $100 cpu into a $1500 cpu.

Win /thread

 

[Kraeoss]

indeed

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...um-e2160_14.html#sect0

I run the e2180 at 3.4ghz most of the time, can go to 3.5Ghz, same chip as the e2160 except it has a 10x multiplier instead of 9x. Note in that link the e21x0 at 3.4Ghz exceeds the Core 2 Extreme X6800 at stock speeds. At time of purchase, that X6800 was selling for $999. I bought my e2180 for $90.

Just about the best answer ever.... heheheh. It can turn a $100 cpu into a $1500 cpu.

the point of overclocking is to more or less get the best/most out of your money... that is if u dont really want to spend 999.99 dollars....

 

[Markfw]

and, it you run a CPU intensive game, you fps is higher, you gameplay is smoother.

If you run F@H like I do, then if you take a 3 ghz cpu, and OC to 4 ghz, then your ppd on a unit which normally give 3000 ppd will now get me 4000 ppd.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: Kraeoss
the point of overclocking is to more or less get the best/most out of your money... that is if u dont really want to spend 999.99 dollars....

I don't think that's what the OP was asking. The OP obviously knows the point of overclocking, but is wondering about the "real-world" effectiveness.

Here's some real-world usage:

My AMD X2 4000+ is overclocked by 43%, from 2.1 Ghz to 3.0. I increased voltage by .1v.
My 8800GT (I know you didn't ask about GPU) is overclocked by 19%

I can run Crysis comfortably on High settings, rather than Medium.

Some Photoshop filters - specifically Smart Sharpen and Focus Magic - are quite noticeably faster. I haven't done a stopwatch test, but they feel faster by similar proportion to the CPU overclock.

A friend of mine plays Second Life a lot. I built her system, and the CPU is an X2 5000+ overclocked from 2.6 Ghz to 3.1 Ghz. She says things feel a bit faster, particularly when she has multiple programs open.

Years ago, software pushed the CPU much harder than is the case now. It seems to me that CPU speed is, in many cases, now a luxury rather than the necessity it once was.

 

[Concillian]

I think the original poster is talking about 'noticeable' gains in games. That is, if a gnome came into your house when you're sleeping and put your CPU to stock speed, then you woke up and started playing a game, would you really notice?

In my experience people tend to run "video card limited" settings in games, and there are very few cases where they'd notice this.

Of course if you're doing CPU limited activities, you'll notice, but I think his point is that most people here aren't in that boat.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: Concillian
I think the original poster is talking about 'noticeable' gains in games.

He didn't specifically mention games, but I think we're all assuming this is a large part of the equation.

Originally posted by: Concillian
... if a gnome came into your house when you're sleeping and put your CPU to stock speed, then you woke up and started playing a game, would you really notice?

Heh, I like this. But then again, I have a thing for short people.

Originally posted by: Concillian
In my experience people tend to run "video card limited" settings in games, and there are very few cases where they'd notice this.

Of course if you're doing CPU limited activities, you'll notice, but I think his point is that most people here aren't in that boat.

I'm probably running a weaker CPU than many folks here, so I think that CPU performance is more of a factor for me. Those in the C2D world have it better, I'm sure.

 

[jjrowley]

When I went from 2.83 to 4.0 my epeen went from a mere 5.5 inches to a now impressive 9.5 inches. Win.

(sarcasm) sorry but I really couldn't resist.

 

[Kraeoss]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: Concillian
I think the original poster is talking about 'noticeable' gains in games.

He didn't specifically mention games, but I think we're all assuming this is a large part of the equation.

Originally posted by: Concillian
... if a gnome came into your house when you're sleeping and put your CPU to stock speed, then you woke up and started playing a game, would you really notice?

Heh, I like this. But then again, I have a thing for short people.

Originally posted by: Concillian
In my experience people tend to run "video card limited" settings in games, and there are very few cases where they'd notice this.

Of course if you're doing CPU limited activities, you'll notice, but I think his point is that most people here aren't in that boat.

I'm probably running a weaker CPU than many folks here, so I think that CPU performance is more of a factor for me. Those in the C2D world have it better, I'm sure.

well i would notice a gnome and beat the crap outta it<or most likely run away in fear> but it is noticeable during boot up for eg. my cpu is 1.6 stock and i had it @ 2.25 and there was a significant increase in performance that's like a 50% oc i think <not too math savvy> oc'd my 8400 gs 20 % and ran crysis a lot better than when not oc'ed... ran @ medium with next to no lag. BTW single core sempron was my CPU

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
Just about the best answer ever.... heheheh. It can turn a $100 cpu into a $1500 cpu.

1500 dollar cpu in the right hands can becomes priceless tho.

 

[LOUISSSSS]

i agree with the op and some others in this thread in saying overclocking doesn't give any real world benefits. EVERYTHING still feels the same with my Q6600 @ 3.6ghz as it was stock at 2.4ghz...

 

[jeffw2767602]

I definitely notice a difference with my Q6600 at 3.6GHz especially when encoding. As far as system snappiness and load times are concerned, I am still at the mercy of my hard drive and can't tell much of a difference. Sinking money in a good SSD is probably the best upgrade as far as noticing a difference in everything is concerned. Unfortunately, it is just not cost efficient right now. I can't wait for SSDs to come down in price!

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
i agree with the op and some others in this thread in saying overclocking doesn't give any real world benefits. EVERYTHING still feels the same with my Q6600 @ 3.6ghz as it was stock at 2.4ghz...

What's your definition of "real world"? I've already given examples of "real world" benefits of overclocking. And as jeffw2767602 points out, encoding really benefits from a faster CPU.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
i agree with the op and some others in this thread in saying overclocking doesn't give any real world benefits. EVERYTHING still feels the same with my Q6600 @ 3.6ghz as it was stock at 2.4ghz...

What's your definition of "real world"? I've already given examples of "real world" benefits of overclocking. And as jeffw2767602 points out, encoding really benefits from a faster CPU.

Sounds like he is talking about loading and setting in the desktop...


I did Oc'd benchmak test all the time and most know that I hated synthetic test...I only ran on real world apps that I run routinely....The gains were quite noticeable....Search for some of "duvies" test threads and you will see what I mean. I am not a big gamer so you wont see much if any of those...

Right now I can say honestly my quad at 3.2ghz is overkill. I might not notice much for what I am doing now if it was only running at 2.667ghz stock. I am having a hard time finding many things that use more then 2 cores effectively. My dual core at 4ghz can spank my quad core 3.2ghz at most things I do because of that...

 

[error8]

If I am to compare my E7200 from 2,53 ghz overclocked to 4 ghz, is like comparing two different cpus. Loading Vista, playing games and any other program out there ran much faster with the chip oc'ed. Is quite a night-day difference. Of course that if it was just a 400mhz or so oc, then it wouldn't have been such a big difference, but 1,5 ghz means A LOT in everything! To bad that it doesn't run stable at 4 ghz anymore....

 

[nyker96]

I OCed my E7200 from 2.5 to 3.5 and does notice booting up windows is faster. But I be honest upgrading from a 3Ghz E2xxx I can't say that much difference in daily apps. However, E7200@3.5 is quite a bit faster than my old 3Ghz in video encoding. I am quite sure if I run my encoding job at only 2.5Ghz it would show the difference.

In short, you will only notice massive gains on jobs that require a long time. You won't feel the difference between a task that ran 2 seconds vs say 1sec. which is majority of daily tasks like browsing.

 

[lifeobry]

for gaming there is a difference. after a certain point it's probably imperceptible, for example 4.0ghz to 4.2ghz, but if you have a 2.5ghz and overclock it to 3.2ghz, you are definitely going to see improvements in games.

 

[Dravic]

If the OP is talking about "REAL" apps like world web browsing, office, email, etc.. then you will see NO difference. Thats not the point of overclocking. Overclocking is about getting more out of the CPU for the applications that require it - Encoding, gaming, folding etc.. Thats where turning a sub $200 cpu/gpu into a top of the line cpu/gpu pays off.

You can get a office machine for $300 if thats all you do.

The other benefit to the consumer is the ability to allocate funds to the part of the system that needs it the most for the apps you're using. For a gamer, getting a $200 cpu and overclocking it, allows you to put that money to a faster GPU, or other components of the build(mobo, ram, gpu, a decent monitor).


If your not all about the latest in greatest, right now if the sweet spot for the intel core 2 duo price/perfomance overclocking. But it comes at the perial of intel switching platforms.

asus p5q pro + 4gb ram combos ~ $140

~$170 for 4ghz overclock dual core (E8400) or 3+ ghz q6600

~$250 for 3.5ghz overclock q9300

$300 to $400 for the meat of the overclocking realm cpu+mobo+ram is ridiculous..


aftermarket HSF for what.. $30


I'm just waiting for deneb numbers now, but with prices like this, AMDs price/perfomance stronghold is under heavy fire.. only benefit may be am2+ denebs for another year on the platform.

 

[AiponGkooja]

If you actually use your CPU at stock for a while, and then later decide to overclock it by 40-50%, you will definitely notice things being a little snappier. I don't even do cpu-intensive activities, but I notice the difference (e7200 @3.8ghz...though not fully stable yet... ).

And yes, it is also much cheaper.

 

[Drsignguy]

I have all my rigs OC'd and the only real noticeable differance I see from my Oc's as opposed from stock is the F@H and other multithreaded Apps I use. From stock and running around doing web surfing to emails it doesn't make much sense to Oc because that isn't Cpu intensive at all and you just will not see any differance if thats all you intend to do. But as for F@H, well there is a noticable step up from stock as my clients finish quicker and thet means more PPD for the cause. From a 3.4 to a 3.5 to 3.6, not really noticeable. It has to be a sugnifficant gain in clock to really notice anything, like from 2.4 - 3.4.

 

[Tempered81]

Well for the normal day-to-day stuff like office, word, basic apps, websurfing, watching movies, using the calculator, setting the time, right clicking the desktop - you're going to see improvement with these tasks by having a faster HDD/SSD/Bandwidth-communication/RAM sub-system. It's things like benchmarking, folding, DC, gaming, encoding, editing that you'll notice a CPU/GPU/FSB overclock on.

 

[Drsignguy]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
Well for the normal day-to-day stuff like office, word, basic apps, websurfing, watching movies, using the calculator, setting the time, right clicking the desktop - you're going to see improvement with these tasks by having a faster HDD/SSD/Bandwidth-communication/RAM sub-system. It's things like benchmarking, folding, DC, gaming, encoding, editing that you'll notice a CPU/GPU/FSB overclock on.

Exactly.:thumbsup: