View Full Version : OC, is it realy worth it and what are the downsides?
Over clocking, is it realy worth it and what are the downsides?
Thats all realy.
This is the setup i will soon have:
Q6600
9800gtx
Corsair 2GB PC2-6400 C4 XMS2 (2x1GB)
Not sure as to what MOBO yet though.
Many thanks,
Flare
The only downsides are a shortened lifespan of the product, but then condsidering the life cycle of a chip, say 4 years at a push, the actual life span of a chip could be 10 years non overclocked, while about 6 when overclocked, so you actually increase the useful lifespan as the product is faster for longer.
As for benefits, more speed for the same money, quieter system with a aftermarket cooler, and you can also make the gfx card overclock, or make the gfx card faster because the cpu is faster.
Yeah, if you're still having doubts do a quick google, there's plenty of info on the web. Benchmarks aswell which show you just how much it can improve performance.
Downsides - Higher temperatures. Quite simply, get a different CPU cooler and you're good to go. £30 expense, no biggy.
I wouldn't even bring shorter lifespan into the equation as this will only occur with excessive voltages put through them, which isn't possible on the Q6600 anyway due to temperatures.
Pro's - A substantial performance increase. The Q6600 at it's default speeds will hold the 9800GTX back in any game that doesn't support all four cores. Q6600's are good for 3.0-3.6GHz without too much fuss. This is £800 QX9650 territory from a £129 chip.
Put it this way. In May last year I paid £75 for a Core 2 Duo E6300. At 1.86GHz reference clocks I would've been rid of it in a couple of months. However, at 2.8GHz for the past year, it's incredibly speedy for the money and compliments my new 8800GT very well. Won't be getting rid of it for quite a while.
Same with my E4500, at stock it held back my X1950, and oldie tbh. I am happy with it at 3.3 because i know its doing aswell as some expensive chips. I am only looking for GFX upgrade at the moment as the CPU is doing well.
I wouldn't even bring shorter lifespan into the equation as this will only occur with excessive voltages put through them
Wouldn't necessarily say that was correct - increasing clock speeds increases temperatures without any voltage increase - as the CPU will pull more current...
I dont OC. I would prefer to buy the higher product rather than a lower one and try to make it what its not.
I stick by a saying of "If you can buy it, Dont build it"
The problems mainly for me is heat. My house is very hot and with a PC under my desk at about 30-40oc it gets stupid..
My PSU at the moment is standard and it kicks out far too much heat (Thats why i enter the comps for the PSU's)
Its so hot that i hardly use my PC and just use the laptop now:cry:
I stick by a saying of "If you can buy it, Dont build it"
what utter b******s...
what utter b******s...
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/images/smilies/popcorn.gif
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/images/smilies/popcorn.gif
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/images/smilies/popcorn.gif
lol i get it. coilers a voyuer :D
i speak with a guy who works for intel in the states and he says the projected lifspan of a modern proc is 20+ years, so if i half the lifespan of it by ocing it i can still keep it for 10 without a concern.
as for is it worth it, well my old 4300 was about £100 when i got it and after i had overclocked it it was faster than any other dual core chip money could buy until they released the wolfdale cores a few weeks back. even when i dropped my clocks to 3.2ghz it was still onpar with the fastest duals at stock speeds. tell me thats not worth it.
Wouldn't necessarily say that was correct - increasing clock speeds increases temperatures without any voltage increase - as the CPU will pull more current...
Correct, temperatures do increase with clock speeds. But not even near as much as with a voltage increase. I published a little test a while back to prove this.
http://www.pchardwaresource.co.uk/index.php?view=article&catid=39%3Acpucoolsctn&id=51%3Acpucsvoltage&option=com_content&Itemid=37
My point is, Voltage increase is the main reason behind a significant temperature increase and (so long as temperatures are below safe limits), it is the effects of electromigration induced by Voltage that will kill a CPU. Bar the 45nm Duals/Quad's, it's not possible to nail a Core 2 Duo/Quad CPU from excessive voltage on air as the temperatures would be too high before you even reach such voltages.
what utter b******s...
I second that. Very few prebuilds will match the same flexibility that a custom built rig has.
PeterStoba
25-04-08, 18:12
Not true, on a forum i am on, there is this guy who spends money like it grows on trees and, hes killed about 6 cpus in the past year
He set his PLL to 2.6v after being told to leave it, and no higher than 1.6
So you can, if your stupid / dont listen
Not true, on a forum i am on, there is this guy who spends money like it grows on trees and, hes killed about 6 cpus in the past year
He set his PLL to 2.6v after being told to leave it, and no higher than 1.6
So you can, if your stupid / dont listen
Again, this relates to Voltages, not purely on clock speed. In all fairness, it defeats all logic setting PLL voltage to 2.6V so I'm not surprised. No guide or sensible tech will tell anyone to do that and so long as no one advises such nonsense, a CPU failure isn't going to happen.
Correct, temperatures do increase with clock speeds. But not even near as much as with a voltage increase. I published a little test a while back to prove this.
http://www.pchardwaresource.co.uk/index.php?view=article&catid=39%3Acpucoolsctn&id=51%3Acpucsvoltage&option=com_content&Itemid=37
My point is, Voltage increase is the main reason behind a significant temperature increase and (so long as temperatures are below safe limits), it is the effects of electromigration induced by Voltage that will kill a CPU. Bar the 45nm Duals/Quad's, it's not possible to nail a Core 2 Duo/Quad CPU from excessive voltage on air as the temperatures would be too high before you even reach such voltages.
I second that. Very few prebuilds will match the same flexibility that a custom built rig has.
Im not talking about prebuilds. Of course you can build better then you can buy. Im talking about the parts used.
So like the chip...Buy the lower one and clock it to the same speed as the higher one....More heat...Less stability....Shorter life....PITA!
GPU, 7800GT to perform as a 7800GTX...Again, More heat....Less stability....Shorter life....PITA!
Goes the same for alot of parts.
Ok, Its possible but im saying go for the biggest you can afford and not the lowest because it "overclocks" better...I dont want OC...I want cool running at the same temp!
but its the cooling as well. so i saved £200 is on my proc and spent some of that on a good air cooler which had me running cooler than any proc under stock.
ive been overclocking for years and never killed any hardware . I will always o/c
wonderlust
25-04-08, 19:54
God, my Celleron 300a is still running at 450Mhz! albeit now used by a child for schoolwork/internat...
monkey56657
25-04-08, 19:57
I love to overclock just makes it nicer...
2.4Ghz on Q6600 just made it sound **** so needed to overclock for that reason hehe.
ive been overclocking for years and never killed any hardware . I will always o/c
Same here, plus i rarely keep a cpu for much longer than 12 months so the shortened life span, neglidgable as it probably is in real terms, doesn't really apply to me.
Thats fine. You keep spending days if not weeks overclocking and ill keep my stock speeds and enjoy it by the time you have yours running up to the same speed.;)
I will also have my chip for a few years as it will be in the market longer then the lower chip you are buying.
The way i see it. If theres somthing faster you are wasing your money on old technology..
But i guess thats just me..:redface:
Usually takes me a matter of minutes to clock my stuff to what i consider comfortable speeds, then a couple of hours tops getting it stable. I'm not one of these speed freaks who spends weeks chasing a few numbers trying to claim some world record becnhmarking title. As for wasting money on old tech, thats just your opinion mine is why spend £300+ on a cpu when a £150 cpu can perform the same / better for the sake of a couple of bios alterations?
....why spend £300+ on a cpu when a £150 cpu can perform the same / better for the sake of a couple of bios alterations?
thats the one :cool: or when a £110 cpu and a £35 heatsink fan can do 4.2ghz :mrgreen: how many stock cpu do that?
Thats fine. You keep spending days if not weeks overclocking and ill keep my stock speeds and enjoy it by the time you have yours running up to the same speed.;)
I will also have my chip for a few years as it will be in the market longer then the lower chip you are buying.
The way i see it. If theres somthing faster you are wasing your money on old technology..
But i guess thats just me..:redface:
Your argument stands correct if you're referring to those who are incredibly serious about overclocking and are buying "old tech" cpu's to save money. However, most of us are buying CPU's from the same product line up (Core 2 Duo) featuring the same architecture, same (if not similar) amount of L2 cache and only differ in the difference in clock speed. Examples include
Why spend £187 on a Core 2 Duo E8500 3.16GHz over a Core 2 Duo E8400 3.00GHz for £129 for the sake of 166MHz?
Why spend £360 on a Core 2 Quad Q9550 2.83GHz over a Core 2 Quad Q9450 2.66GHz for £235 for the same of 166MHz?
going back to the days of AMD64
Why spend £200 on an AMD Athlon 64 3800+ over a £100 AMD Athlon 64 3200+ for the sake of 400MHz?
Why spend £600 on an AMD Athlon 64 FX57 over a £90 AMD Opteron 144 with the same core and will overclock to at least 80-90% of the speed of the FX57?
My point is, most overclockers will only buy a cpu that they know will overclock to and above the same speed of a significantly faster chip for the sake of value for money. None of us will buy a £30 Celeron E1200 1.6GHz and try and get it to perform as well as a £180 Core 2 Duo E8500 3.16GHz as that is indeed trying to draw blood from a stone.
For anyone who knows what they're doing, overclocking won't take any longer than a couple of hours to find the ideal frequencies and then a couple of hours stability testing (which you won't even need to watch as such. Just get on with other things). Not days and certainly not weeks.
We live in an era where overclocking is easy, chips run much cooler, are a lot more durable and it's next to impossible to break anything. I'm not trying to force my opinions on you or anything but to say that the extra heat, need for better coolers and cpu life (I still refuse to consider this as a deciding factor) outweighs the advantages of today's overclocks, you're wrong.
Well intel are closing down overclocking on their next generation, so were all going to go amd for sure!
I read an article about this a while ago.
It seems that the midrange/entry level socket will lose overclocking support while Bloomfield LGA1366 will still have it. It's possible to do seeing that aspects of what would've been the northbridge will now be integrated to the CPU itself. It's still a bit of a shock though and if Intel managed to pull it off, all it proves is that Intel and it's performance advantage is allowing them to be very monopolistic.
For now I'll only believe it until I see it. As far as I'm aware, the original source of this information was Fudzilla? Could well be speculation and the source in question isn't exactly the most reliable.
fud? did they get it from the inq???
nah they are going to cripple the mem controller is what i heard to so it will only run at set speeds and only open it up on x range so they can cash in on the scene. i just hope they do it like amd with b.e. across the range.
As far as sources are concerned, Inq and Fud tend to get information from each other and are generally as bad as each other in terms of reliability of info and the quality of articles. Not saying they're wrong as what you're describing is quite possible but I don't plan on believing it until it's confirmed.
Shocking if that's what they do in the end. Sensible business decision though.
Personally i think it will be a terrible business decission if Intel go ahead with it. I don't doubt people will just goto AMD, assuming they have something competetive that will overclock to better perfomance than an equivalent priced cpu.
There's no doubt that their own lower end chips eat into the sales of their higher end chips in the enthusiast market because Intel Core yields are simply that good that it makes sense for many to overclock. Stopping this will encourange Intel loyalists to continue to buy Intel but the more expensive equipment with a few going to the AMD base. The quantity of people going AMD will depend on whether their CPU's are competitive enough and how well they'll perform clock for clock at the time.
Although, either way it shouldn't make a huge difference for Intel. Out of the whole market, only a small proportion are DIY builders. Out of DIY builders, only a small proportion overclock. Getting rid of overclocking features for the mainstream platform won't acheive much in terms of revenue.
I'm still surprised that they might be planning on doing this. Then again there were claims of them trying to stop overclocking when they moved from Socket 478 to LGA775 and that didn't really happen thanks to 3rd party board manufacturers. This could change given the Nehalem architecture.
thing is tho phenom sucks and bulldozer is still 2 years away if they are lucky.
i dont care who makes my stuff if its the fastest i can afford thats who gets my money.
im not going to buy an amd tho if i need to oc it to get the same performance of a stock intel in the same price bracket why would i bother?
im not going to buy an amd tho if i need to oc it to get the same performance of a stock intel in the same price bracket why would i bother?
I didn't say that, i said (or what i thought i was saying) was if you have an amd and intel chip of similar price and similar (stock) performance but you couldn't overclock the intel chip then diyers will most likely move to amd side because they can overclock the amd chip to get, hopefully, significantly better performance at a lower price.
I wouldn't buy a chip just to overclock it to similar perfomance of another chip of equal price just because that second chip couldn't be overclocked either, i would dump intel in a heartbeat if an amd chip of similar price could be overclocked to the performance of the next intel chip up in price though for example.
PeterStoba
26-04-08, 22:29
thats the one :cool: or when a £110 cpu and a £35 heatsink fan can do 4.2ghz :mrgreen: how many stock cpu do that?
The more expensive cpu with an already higher clock speed would clock even higher on the same cooler maybe :P
mac we are both saying the same thing i think, but im not i sure worded it right in my earlier posts.
pete that depends tbh, look at the x2 range, 6400x2 can clock to about 3.4/3.5ghz with good cooling but so can a 5000x2 if it is also cool enough. this is down to that being about the limit of the tech used in those chips. wolfdales all seem to be able to hit about 4.2/4.4ghz on air with "normal" voltage levels and if your happy with it they all seem to be able to 5ghz (board willing) with enough voltage. the higher the stock speed means the higher the multi on the cpu which just gives you more options on how you reach that speed, 360x10/400x9/450x8 all will give you same speed but 450x8 should give you more performance than 360x10 due to the extra bandwidth thru the fsb. the other thing is tho the higher spec'd stock chip should (in theory anyway) need less voltage to hit the same speeds as the lower spec'd chip as they are from the higher bins and should be higher quality ic.
monkey56657
27-04-08, 03:30
If intel dont allow overclocking its not just the people who overclock that would move to AMD its people they advise as well...
mac we are both saying the same thing i think, but im not i sure worded it right in my earlier posts.
I read your posts as you wouldn't buy an "inferior" chip just because you can overclock it to the same performance as a stock chip if they were the similar price, and who could blame you.
Still not sure if what i said is coming across though??
2 cpu's similar price, similar stock performance one (Intel) you can't overclock one (AMD) you can overclock, which would you buy?
For me its a no brainer as i like overclocking ergo i would switch to AMD.
PeterStoba
27-04-08, 10:37
Yeah, I get you Mac
if both cost the same and performed the same but only one had the ability to be over clocked of course i would buy it. regardless of make, my last 2 builds have been intel but before the c2d came out my pc was amd powered. i have no loyalties other then to my wallet :D
what i ment by that was, well, do you think amd will be able to stay close once nelhelam is out? even if its only a slight improvement over the current c2d range it will strech their lead even more and i just cant see amd dropping prices again just to stay competative with the amount of debt they have.
Over clocking, is it realy worth it and what are the downsides?
Thats all realy.
This is the setup i will soon have:
Q6600
9800gtx
Corsair 2GB PC2-6400 C4 XMS2 (2x1GB)
Not sure as to what MOBO yet though.
Many thanks,
Flare
Anyway, just to wrap up this thread I think we can safely say that the advantages outweigh any disadvantages by a country mile.
Indeed. Provided you are half way compitent, there are no disadvantages. Just a side note on the 5000+ vs the 6400+, the 5000+ will reach 3.3ghz stable on air with only a minor voltage increase, but.... the 6400+ has 2x the L2 cache which is very important when it comes to the serious number crunching. If it were £20-£30 cheaper, it would be a real bargain and an excelent starting point for a budget performance system, and a good way to get into the whole overclocking scene with minimal outlay. Not sure if the extra L2 justifies double the price of the 5000+ all things considered.
thats where the e4x00 range comes in tho, and most 5000be only hit 2.8ghz with 1.5v. if you have an am2 mobo the 5000be is a steal but im not sure i would take 1 over a cheap core2duo.
The 5000 BE will hit 3.1ghz with no extra voltage (1.34v) on a 15.5x multi and still idle at 20*c (decent HSF permitting). With a step up in voltage you'll hit 3.2 on a 16x multi, again with no increase in idle temps. 3.4 is possible though I aint pushed it that far myself. If someone cannot reach those speeds they are doing something wrong or dont have the Black Edition chip, are using a stock cooler or a cheap mobo. Ram isnt a factor due to the cpu:ram divider (on an AM2 800mhz mobo), you'll be at or below 800mhz, you also dont really have to mess with the FSB. Its a simple matter of entering BIOS and upping the cpu multiplier, easy as that. There are more than enough benchmark/overclocking results for the 5000BE on the net to prove its not just the 'odd' chip.
thats a nice chip you have there if it can do those speeds on stock vcore, imagine what it can do with 1.5/6v :eek: i have seen lots of 5000 be's that need much more volts to hit those speeds and hold it.
thats a nice chip you have there if it can do those speeds on stock vcore, imagine what it can do with 1.5/6v :eek: i have seen lots of 5000 be's that need much more volts to hit those speeds and hold it.
2.8GHz, 1.5V sounds like early 65nm K8 chip territory. The G2 revision Brisbane used on the Black Editions are pretty much fine for 3.0GHz under 1.4V and 3.3-3.4GHz is often doable. Good chip for the money, but the AM2 platform isn't in terms of future upgradability.
No such thing as futureproof. AM2+ days are numbered with AM3/K10 just around the corner, and Intel aint much better with their mobo's. 775 has been around a while, but hasn't meant early adopters have not had to upgrade a few times with chip revisions. Swings and roundabouts. Bottom line is how much are you willing to spend for something with an 18 month max life span. Personaly, not much.:lol:
Correct. Didn't mean to hint anything about "futureproof" as I don't believe in it. My point is, how AM2 fairs against LGA775 for CPU upgradability whenever one's budget allows. AM2 will allow you to buy a Phenom Quad, LGA775 will let you buy more efficient duals and a wide range of Quads that overclock well. While both sockets may not last very long (and LGA775 actually has a death date), LGA775 is still the better platform for CPU's
775 is good for backward compatabilty, right back possibly to the P4, if you were so inclined, but intel have still had multple revisions of 775 which are not forward compatable. Your old P4 board wont run a quad. The count is 3 for 4, if you want to include Socket 754, (did anyone actualy buy that?), so really neither of them are any better than the other in that respect. Again, it will be the same for the new intel DDR3 boards and AM3 when it gets here, though AM3 is supposed to be 940 pin so will accomodate AM2 chips likewise AM3 chips will work in AM2 boards. In reality, there is very little difference between the two standards in terms of upgrade paths, though that intel has maintained the 775 platform is rather misleading as to its compatability. On a side note, a top spec AMD board has always been around 1/2 the price of the equivilent Intel.
All fair points but we've now got to a stage where both are reaching the end of their socket life.
I'm comparing AMD 770 vs P35 or AMD 790FX vs X38.
My point is, assuming you opt for a value overclock dual life an X2 5000 BE or Pentium E2180 for example. Future CPU upgrades for those would get you a Phenom or a Core 2 Quad respectively. We know that the Core 2 Quad is faster clock for clock, consumes less power and overclocks better. Yes, AMD now have a comparable chip to the Q6600 at stock, the Phenom 9850, but the Phenom is more expensive now!
When you consider the fact that quality X38 boards are £110-120, around the same for a good 790FX board, as well as the fact that highly overclockable P35 boards are available from £60, the price of Intel motherboards factor is pretty much out of the window.
Intel is most definately king of the overclocking hill right now, and for the foreseable future. If it were not for the fact I'm cheap, I'd have bought a Q6600 myself, and I've been an AMD fanboy since the K6-2. The Phenom 9850, like you say, is currently more expensive, consumes more power, does not overclock as well, and does not perform on the same level as even the Q6600 in the majority of benchmarks. I personaly would not currently recommend the purchase of a Spider platform system to anyone, when for virtualy the same sort of money you can have a kick *** Intel based system with far more overclocking potential and better 'out of the box' performance. If someone is looking to build a system on the cheap that has half decent performance, some overclocking potential, and the ability to upgrade isn't really an issue, then I'd recommend AMD, its like a disposable computer and could be achieved for under £250 minus monitor and peripherals. At that kind of money, a full upgrade every 12-18 months isn't too far fetched, and a fairly economical solution.
If someone is looking to build a system on the cheap that has half decent performance, some overclocking potential, and the ability to upgrade isn't really an issue, then I'd recommend AMD, its like a disposable computer and could be achieved for under £250 minus monitor and peripherals. At that kind of money, a full upgrade every 12-18 months isn't too far fetched, and a fairly economical solution.
With Intel releasing the cheap Dual Core Celeron CPUs, it's perfectly possible to get a cheap Intel system that will overclock well and still cost less than £200 to complete - AMD used to be able to compete across the board, but they're looking a bit tired right now... which is a damned shame.
PeterStoba
02-05-08, 15:17
PC Pro, build a PC for less than £200 ex vat. about £240 inc. it's intel, and has a lot of options to upgrade
wonderlust
02-05-08, 15:25
I have been looking to upgrade my last single core machine,
I am not sure if for my budget (around £100) it is best to go with a 945 chipset board and a E2160 and overclock the life out of it (if the board will let me!) or get AM2 board and a 4600+ X2?
PeterStoba
02-05-08, 15:28
Intel!
wonderlust
02-05-08, 15:30
yeah, but am I gona get the overclocks out of an old 945 board?
You wont get much out of a 4400+. Go for the 5000+ Black Edition and an AM2+ 770 if you're going to go the budget AMD route. That at least allows for a Phenom based upgrade when they are £10 each lol.
wonderlust
02-05-08, 17:00
It will only be used a mule box on 24/7 (Win 2003) or a pvr using Vista MCE so it doesn't have to be fast just dual core.
If I could find a cheap 3800+x2 939 I would just slap that in the board i have but the prices are just stupid.
What pc are you loking to upgade? If its the939 one in your sig you wil need ddr2 memory also
wonderlust
02-05-08, 17:10
Thats why I am looking so low end.
Aria are doing an Asus 775 945 board for £30 is IIRC chip at £45 ish and ram at £30 ish
just above my £100 budget.
or a Jetway (yuk) am2 board for around £20 ish 4600+x2 £40 ish same ram at £30ish
For sub £100 cpu/ram/motherboard upgrades there isn't a huge difference between Intel and AMD. For it's usage, either would do the same job anyway. It sounds like something that needs to sit silently in a corner 24/7 on the cheap and in this situation, my vote would probably go to a 45W AMD Athlon 64 4x50e chip, an AMD690G/780G board and the cheapest DDR2, money can buy. My reasoning, purely due to price, the setup's proposed usage and power consumption/heat output.
wonderlust
02-05-08, 17:49
well I already have a spare Freezer pro 64 but it will need a fan mate as it's not a pwm model
That or just a new 92mm Arctic Cooling PWM fan. They're available separately with the same rubber mount option.
wonderlust
02-05-08, 18:08
they won't fit the Freezer frame is not square!:(
The fan mounting points are 85mm apart horizontally and 75mm vertically
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.