Why do you overclock?

[alawadhi3000]

Because its a free performance boost if you need it.
BTW you can use less power than stock by overclock slightly and undervolting.

 

[zir_blazer]

I think everyone can agree that for the vast majority of people, mainstream Processor performance is overkill. If you are going to tweak, instead of a "free" performance boost (Which is not free, speficially on the Intel side where you need to spend more on a mainstream-enthusiast K series Processor and Z series Motherboard, and also a better heatsink), I would go for undervolting @ stock to save power and reduce fan noise, assuming current performance suffices. Overclocking is for when you need more performance, but you have to need it, because it isn't "free".

 

[Matt1970]

I think everyone can agree that for the vast majority of people, mainstream Processor performance is overkill. If you are going to tweak, instead of a "free" performance boost (Which is not free, speficially on the Intel side where you need to spend more on a mainstream-enthusiast K series Processor and Z series Motherboard, and also a better heatsink), I would go for undervolting @ stock to save power and reduce fan noise, assuming current performance suffices. Overclocking is for when you need more performance, but you have to need it, because it isn't "free".

That would depend on the processor. While an i7 may be overkill for most by the AMD C-50 would surely be underkill.

 

[tolis626]

I think everyone can agree that for the vast majority of people, mainstream Processor performance is overkill. If you are going to tweak, instead of a "free" performance boost (Which is not free, speficially on the Intel side where you need to spend more on a mainstream-enthusiast K series Processor and Z series Motherboard, and also a better heatsink), I would go for undervolting @ stock to save power and reduce fan noise, assuming current performance suffices. Overclocking is for when you need more performance, but you have to need it, because it isn't "free".

The people for whom CPUs like the 4770k are overkill are the same people that probably won't buy them.Joe Average won't buy an i7 unless he's got money to burn.In which case,the 4770k is the least of the dumb things they'll get.

 

[rgallant]

newer tech. [cpu\mb]sometimes needs to match the rest of your hardware
-ssd's hard to bench on sata 1 [used 2 ports when I was on the x58 for raid 0]
-pci-e 3 for newer vid. cards
-usb 3 - don't care about it yet

-forgot to add memory @2400 c10 can't do that on a 920

also op is on x58 has never used speed step , I have mine set at idle 3.5 ,load 4.6
just did a backup now image only , about 120gb ,cpu kicked up to 4.6 ran at about 85% on one core mostly , only took a few minutes while reading this thread.

 

[Bubbleawsome]

I do extremely intensive CPU work, and even a mild ram and higher CPU overclock can near double performance.

 

[witeken]

I just don't buy into the fast enough argument, mainly because I have 2 software ideas that only work with at least 10,000x the computing power on the desktop than we have today.

What is that software idea that would need a 40THz CPU ? Not sure if you're going to find such a processor in the coming ~2 decades.

 

[Rakehellion]

4. Not much benefit for more than 90% of computer usage which is browsing, youtube, email, etc.

What about the other 10%?

 

[Burpo]

Yes, I'm in the other 10% and need mine for video editing. The difference between stock & overclocked below..
Stock 2.13Ghz..

This is at 3.2Ghz..


To me it made sense to cut my render times by 1/3 just by changing a few settings..

 

[SPBHM]

Yes, I'm in the other 10% and need mine for video editing. The difference between stock & overclocked below..
Stock 2.13Ghz..


To me it made sense to cut my render by 1/3

yes this is great, now try the same with a LGA 2011 or 1055 Xeon :'(

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Another way to look at the issue -- as follows.

In 1983, I paid about $3,000 for a transportable with the 8088 CPU.

In 1988, I paid about $3,000 for an NEC 386.

In 1993, I paid about $3,500 for a Gateway 486.

On 1995, I bought another Gateway Pentium for about $3,000.

After that, I was building them myself. The outlays usually averaged around $1,500. According to the logic I followed through 2002, I was "saving" money.

Now I can buy a mainstream desktop for maybe $600. I'm more likely to build my own for between $1,400 and $2,000. But I build my own because I know what my $600 would buy for a Dell, Gateway, etc.etc.

Then I turn around and add my own chosen risks to the larger purchase. For that, I get pretty much what someone might spend $3,000 or $4,000 for a "flagship" with the "X" processor.

At this point, though, I mostly do it because "I can," and because I belong to the Anandtech forums. Go figure . . .

 

[MrSquished]

I have an unlocked CPU a mid-high level mobo and after market cooling. The real question should be why not OC.

pretty much.

do it safely and you get noticeable performance gains. if you do things like edit photos or videos say, you will save time. time is money. if you play games, may get a few extra FPS out of it. won't save you time but may make the game more enjoyable.

 

[TerryMathews]

I see many threads in this forum about overclocking new CPU such as the 4770 and etc and I think whats the point of overclocking these CPU?

So I ask each one of you, why do you overclock the CPU? Can you say the reason you do it?

You can make the same argument against any upgrade. More RAM, faster GPU, SSD, etc.

The bottom line is that altering the performance settings of a CPU to overclock gives you better positioning on the price/performance curve unless you get a real dud.

As to why I do it? I enjoy it, and I have the expertise to do it right. It scares some people and I understand; not everyone is qualified to overclock.

 

[Headfoot]

well said.

given the task. only time to seriously consider overclocking is when you already have the best hardware and it is still not fast enough.

otherwise just easier to just buy the next faster hardware.

exception is. 1) you got more time than money. so you tinker to find out how hard a particular hardware can be push before failure. and 2) cause this is anand tech forum.

What??

More time than money? Sorry but that's completely off base. Every decent motherboard since 2009 has included auto-overclocking features that *literally* take 30 seconds to overclock your machine. Not to the fullest extent, but a good portion of it.

Everything except the very most basic of computer usage will run into CPU bottlenecks still to this day, you can always use more speed. There are so very many tasks where even a 4770k is still just not fast enough

 

[zShowtimez]

I do it for no other reason than its been my hobby for almost 15 years!

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I do it for no other reason than its been my hobby for almost 15 years!

I have to add that to my own list. It's obviously applicable if I spent more money on it than I needed to, even to "save money" overclocking.

 

[sf101]

I've over clocked for years and i will do so as long as i am possible.
reasons.
Increased average and minimum frame rates for games its noticeable in every situation.
Raw snappishness of my pc once you get used to high end performance its really hard to go back.
Increased load times yes i know some may call bs but ive seen it First hand esp with mem tweaking.

When you OC / Tweak a system you tend to remove bottlenecks resulting in just a overall better experience. no slow downs glitching hitching waiting in general.

Its like why buy a SSD when the rest of your system is holding back processing the much faster info access speeds it just makes sense to open up the bottlenecks so nothing is holding anything else back as much as can be done that is.

I say don't knock it until you try it esp with your 930 I7 once you OC that system to 4.0ghz ish levels and tweak your memory with a solid tripple kit you wont go back to stock.

And for the Relitivly cheap price it costs for a half decent cooler it sure stretches out the legs and overall value of your system.

essentially your getting a next gen system sometimes 2 gen newer system for another 20-100$ depending on what cooler you go with.

A 4.0Ghz 930 Can hold its own with stock clocked 2600's imho esp with gaming your looking at similar fps as stock ivy's at least.

try it out and see for yourself.

 

[videogames101]

Because there is no x86 CPU I can buy with enough single threaded performance.

 

[BrightCandle]

What is that software idea that would need a 40THz CPU ? Not sure if you're going to find such a processor in the coming ~2 decades.

I don't want to derail too much so please no one respond to my response here, since someone enquired I'll answer as best as I can.

Actually its relatively easy to think of the sort of problems that are currently beyond your machine and require fast server farms today. The scientists might be curing cancer but why not analyse your own genetic code and compare it with others for the purpose of finding your own diseases. Why not run your own search engine like google right on your home PC personalised to your preferences. How about games with voxels that have true physical representations so that footprints are just something that happens because of the engine not a cheap trick added in as a texture with some bump mapping. Real time ray tracing with high ongoing ray casts and everything as a light source with more than just the light behaviour equations.

Or even simple desktop applications - like scanning your word document to determine how like other works it is to assess style, substance and a host of other things that require millions/billions of comparisons and deep processing of each document. How about spelling algorithms that recognise more than just the wrong spelling but the wrong use of the spelling (their, there etc).

Its surprising how neutered our basic computer is by the performance it has, the only reason we use polygons in games is because they have great bang for the buck. They look dreadful, need tonnes of hacks that are nothing like the real world to work well and make a lot of things almost impossible. But we don't have the computing power to do anything else.

There is a false logic in assuming that the software you have today can be run on todays hardware and hence there are no ideas beyond what we have today. The reality is that the software you can buy and use today is the software that will run on todays hardware, and there are a huge list of possibilities (I could have 100 examples I suspect of things I can't do today but want to from big to small ideas) but todays machines are simply too slow to do it. Much of these ideas make no sense as websites (use a farm of machines to process it) simply because a website requires marginal costs, a million machines to solve one users problem where that problem is a concern that wont make that user a lot of money = not viable today. So its not that todays processors are good enough for everything, its that you wont ever see software that can't be run on todays hardware, mainly because if the programmer can't run it he/she can't test it let alone do anything useful with it themselves. Its a false logic to assume that todays CPUs are fast enough, I assure you that if I get a faster CPU (orders of magnitude) I have plenty of ideas that will work that today wouldn't be real time but they need to be.

 

[skipsneeky2]

No overclocking here cause my build started off on a strict tight budget that housed a i3 2100 originally.

Skylake when it debutes will be the build i may overclock, two games i play being World of Tanks and GTA4 need more cpu but personally wouldn't know if the increase in fps due to a newer chip+oc is even worth it as my 770 does just fine on its own.

 

[2is]

Well I do mining on my CPUs which is why I said 100%. OCing the CPU clock speed yields a pretty linear performance increase. Others can say the same if they do encoding, gaming, etc...

I understand, I'm not saying you don't benefit, i'm just saying the vast majority of users out there wouldn't. Your original post I responded to made it seem like most users needed more power which really isn't the case. Heck most users are on i3's or lower and it's perfectly adequate for them.

 

[UaVaj]

overclock is clearly not free performance.

the good. overclocking requires swapping golden sample cpu, a better motherboard, a better psu and a better cooling solution, and lot of time and energy and bsod to get there. if you already bought the better of everything. you fall into this group. for the given task. the best is not enough so you have to overclock.

the bad. pushing hardware to its limit with typical cpu, motherboard, typical psu, typical cooling. obviously this group have more time than money. hence not buying the next faster hardware.

the ugly. push the oc button for mild motherboard oc. even 1mhz consider is ocing.



bottom line is have fun, if oc is your cup of tea. remember that fried hardware will add cost to that free performance.

 

[Golgatha]

I actually have more reasons to not OC:

1. More reliable computing experience, less BSOD, etc
2. More green to environment, less power
3. No need to tinker with BIOS, settings, etc.
4. Not much benefit for more than 90% of computer usage which is browsing, youtube, email, etc.

I use a tablet (sub 10w) or laptop (20-40w) for a lot of the 90% usage. Now that's green! For gaming, video encoding, protein folding, and (insert need for speed app here); you can't go wrong with a slight overclock. I don't go for max overclocks, but I do 24/7/365 torture test my hardware to see where that max is and then bump it down 10-20% from the max stable torture test.

 

[magomago]

photo editing; stitch 1/2 gigapixel photos and you'll see why sandybridge at 4.2ghz is nicer than sandy at 3.3ghz

from a games perspective, nothing is do is stressed by my system. Even from a daily use perspective its all the same...but load up something like photo or video editing, and its obvious why faster is better.

 

[nwo]

I understand, I'm not saying you don't benefit, i'm just saying the vast majority of users out there wouldn't. Your original post I responded to made it seem like most users needed more power which really isn't the case. Heck most users are on i3's or lower and it's perfectly adequate for them.

I think that's the key word we were both looking for...