Ive been overclocking since the Pentium MMX days and I dont think I've invested "hundreds of hours into it." And how have you killed so much gear? Ive never killed anything overclocking, except for a mediocre PSU.
Have you considered buying a Mac?
it's not free when you have to pay more for specific "K" models and chipsets,
it used to be kind of free back in the pre Sandy Bridge days, but not exactly.
Serious overclocking has never been free or cheap except in few rare cases (like celeron mendoncino@400mhz or e2140@3ghz).
You always had to pay a lot more money for special parts suited for OCing.
Overclocking made sense when the conscious enthusiast could spend the same money purchasing a low end Processor, a mid-high end Motherboard and aftermarket cooling and get more performance via overclocking that what you could get if you instead purchased a mainstream Processor and a mediocre Motherboard, back when Chipset made an huge impact on performance and having a good Motherboard was important. It is even better if the retail Heatsink is overkill so you have good overclocking margin without even spending on aftermarket solutions.
These days, you could get easily away with a cheap Core i5 and a B or H Chipset, and have most of what matters. You're pretty much forced to go to higher models to overclock. Most of the difference that is useful is when you get a slow part to overclock it, which you can't, getting a mainstream or high end part and do the same isn't that useful because you have the performance bar higher.
Besides, overclocking isn't power efficient, actually, is totally the otherwise. Unless you don't know that after a point, the Frequency/Voltage curve becomes exponential instead of lineal. An example, forcing a Deneb C3 to work at 4 GHz because you like round numbers, ignoring the fact that power consumption skyrockets after 3.8 GHz. The extra stress that you put on the Motherboard VRM, Processor and Power Supply (And money you need to spend on those) is barely worth the minimal and nearly unnoticeable performance increase. Yet most people just like to get every last possible MHz regardless of how retarded it becomes after crossing that point.
Overclocking made sense when the conscious enthusiast could spend the same money purchasing a low end Processor, a mid-high end Motherboard and aftermarket cooling and get more performance via overclocking that what you could get if you instead purchased a mainstream Processor and a mediocre Motherboard, back when Chipset made an huge impact on performance and having a good Motherboard was important. It is even better if the retail Heatsink is overkill so you have good overclocking margin without even spending on aftermarket solutions.
These days, you could get easily away with a cheap Core i5 and a B or H Chipset, and have most of what matters. You're pretty much forced to go to higher models to overclock. Most of the difference that is useful is when you get a slow part to overclock it, which you can't, getting a mainstream or high end part and do the same isn't that useful because you have the performance bar higher.
Besides, overclocking isn't power efficient, actually, is totally the otherwise. Unless you don't know that after a point, the Frequency/Voltage curve becomes exponential instead of lineal. An example, forcing a Deneb C3 to work at 4 GHz because you like round numbers, ignoring the fact that power consumption skyrockets after 3.8 GHz. The extra stress that you put on the Motherboard VRM, Processor and Power Supply (And money you need to spend on those) is barely worth the minimal and nearly unnoticeable performance increase. Yet most people just like to get every last possible MHz regardless of how retarded it becomes after crossing that point.
Yes, there is... Almost no matter the setup, OC to the max, then take half that for a stable "free" overclock.
that post is a troll post.
Performance per watt increases as you overclock, there is always a cost. No such thing as a free lunch.
This makes no sense what-so-ever.
So you don't pay for the electricity you use?
Performance per watt decreases as you overclock, there is always a cost. No such thing as a free lunch.
]
Not if the power consumption is substantially worse.
Indeed, it doesn't. I really should stay off these forums before I have my coffee :whiste:
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.
you could always select the best parts for the money for OC (even for the sub $100 CPU and $50 MB), but not like now, you buy a 4670K/4770K + Z87 or nothing.
what is serious OC? 4670K average OC is what like 25%? low end parts with cheap MBs used to OC more than that easily before sandy bridge.
wrong again....IF you don't increase the vcore, yes the power goes up, but since its doing more work, the net is the same $/work.
What's the point on your comment? That Xeon is from the Nehalem era, where you could still overclock via Base Clock. I still recall the Mobile Athlon XP and Socket 939 Opterons for that matter.Read the L5639 thread and realize how ignorant this comment really is.
The next great overclocker is always out there just waiting to be discovered.
I know very few responsible overclockers, most of them want the highest possible Frequency, they don't know/don't care about power consumption, noise, etc. They just want higher scores in CineBench and 3DMark for the ePenis factor. Rounded numbers are nice targets, sometimes senseless, but that's what the 5 GHz Sandy Bridge club exist for.There are so many things wrong with this statement, its not funny, but lets just take one as an example. If the power skyrockets after 3.8, then a responsible OC'er probably would not go over 3.8
As for needing high end equipment, thats ridiculous. I have low end motherboards on some of my rigs, and they OC just fine. Granted, if you spend more money you will probably get a higher OC, but its all a matter of degrees.
As for unnoticeable performance, my dual 5639 right won't even get the bonus if not overclocked. so 7k vs 160k ppd is not noticeable ? that post is a troll post.
And while that is true, it is MAX overclock. If you care about power, and still want to OC, you can, that's my point. Its optional, not required.Your logic is brilliant... If you don't modify the voltage and optimize the overclock then everything is fine... The fallacy in that argument, however, is that core frequency is voltage dependant and lower frequencies use lower voltages. Even a stock frequency, the chip can be undervolted so making the argument that voltage doesn't change with OC is really grasping at straws...
I can under-volt my 4770K to .95V and run it at 3.9GHz stable, the chip requires incremental voltage increases to reach higher frequencies. My 24/7 configuration is 4.6GHz at 1.196V. 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5 all require unique voltages to run stable. Yes, I can leave the chip at stock voltages and claim that I am receiving "free performance" since I am able to clock 300-400MHz higher without increasing voltages. However, this is disingenuous as any individual who is overclocking should also be trying to obtain the lowest voltage for any specific frequency and, as such, should also explore under-volting the chip to determine the lowest possible voltage for stock performance. Only then can you analyze the difference in power consumption at different frequencies of a given chip.
Even the referenced article discussed this:
And while that is true, it is MAX overclock.