Why Overclock

When overclocking temperature is the killer. If you want to go to the extreme overclocking, and bump the voltage way up and run it with a temp just within dying margin if your using air or water . Then sure your processor is not going to last as long. But if you do it within what I call out of the stupidity margin and keep the temps. down the processor will truck right on.
 
Last edited:
StrangleHold said:
When overclocking temperature is the killer. If you want to go to the extreme overclocking, and bump the voltage way up and run it with a temp just withing dying margin if your using air or water . Then sure your processor is not going to last as long. But if you do it within what I call out of the stupidity margin and keep the temps. down the processor will truck right on.
Click to expand...

the stupidity margin is where all the fun is lol
 
Over clocking also takes down the stability of your system. It really does nothing but push your hardware to the limits and the only time you see large differences is in benchmarking.

Otherwise it doesn't give a super real world performance increase, so I see it more as a marketing scheme or a hobby. Some people like to tinker with cars, some with computers, and there are a lot of after-market products that allow the owner to do so.

That and I guess you can brag about your over clock. I did it back in the day, pushed systems to their extreme limits, burned out a few power supplies in the process but never any major component.
 
tlarkin said:
Otherwise it doesn't give a super real world performance increase, so I see it more as a marketing scheme or a hobby. Some people like to tinker with cars, some with computers, and there are a lot of after-market products that allow the owner to do so.
Click to expand...

i dont agree,when i got my rig running i had it at stock for a few weeks then i overclocked and wow it was alot faster,i know i have not done an extreme overclock but i did notice the diffrence from boot time to loading up games etc.

Over clocking also takes down the stability of your system
Click to expand...

only if you do not have the settings right,like if theres not enough voltage to the cpu.

i didnt give my northbridge enough power when i overclocked and it wasnt stable,so i gave it a slight raise and it was stable in orthos.
 
just a noob said:
on the note of voltage killing something, it takes quite a bit to actully kill something from voltage, i know of people who clock their qx's to 5ghz+ using 1.9volts+ that still havent died
Click to expand...

Yeah, and actually the VTT is more of factor than just voltage. I wouldnt personally go above 1.45 on air though...
 
Nevakonaza said:
i dont agree,when i got my rig running i had it at stock for a few weeks then i overclocked and wow it was alot faster,i know i have not done an extreme overclock but i did notice the diffrence from boot time to loading up games etc.



only if you do not have the settings right,like if theres not enough voltage to the cpu.

i didnt give my northbridge enough power when i overclocked and it wasnt stable,so i gave it a slight raise and it was stable in orthos.
Click to expand...

Do you have real world data to back that up? Or is it you just feel it went a lot faster? Maybe over clocking has improved since I did it, but then again I don't like to make my system less stable for the sake of benchmarking.
 
Overclocking can benefit a computer a lot but only if your CPU is a bottleneck (or whatever it is you are overclocking). I remember my old Athlon 64 3200+, at stock speeds my 3dmark was around 3800 with a Radeon X800, after overclocking to about 2.6Ghz, it jumped to about 5800. This equated to about a 5-10 FPS jump in games that were otherwise unplayable.
 
tlarkin said:
Do you have real world data to back that up? Or is it you just feel it went a lot faster? Maybe over clocking has improved since I did it, but then again I don't like to make my system less stable for the sake of benchmarking.
Click to expand...

Oh, come on tlarkin. Your trying to say with a straight face that Nevakonaza processor that runs at 1.86 stock overclocked to 2.8 is not going to give him any real performance increase, unless he has a benchmark to prove it. Get real! True I agree that the stability of a system can get unstable (if not done right).

It depends on what your using the computer for if overclocking is a good idea or not. If you have a system that stability is the most important then, no I would not suggest overclocking. But to just say over all that overclocking doesnt give you anywhere from none to just a small increase in performace is just wrong. Just a blanket statement covering anybody overclocking is misleading.
 
Oh, come on tlarkin. Your trying to say with a straight face that Nevakonaza processor that runs at 1.86 stock overclocked to 2.8 is not going to give him any real performance increase, unless he has a benchmark to prove it. Get real! True I agree that the stability of a system can get unstable (if not done right).
Click to expand...

294168009_b25decaddf.jpg


oh snap!!
 
StrangleHold said:
Oh, come on tlarkin. Your trying to say with a straight face that Nevakonaza processor that runs at 1.86 stock overclocked to 2.8 is not going to give him any real performance increase, unless he has a benchmark to prove it. Get real! True I agree that the stability of a system can get unstable (if not done right).

It depends on what your using the computer for if overclocking is a good idea or not. If you have a system that stability is the most important then, no I would not suggest overclocking. But to just say over all that overclocking doesnt give you anywhere from none to just a small increase in performace is just wrong. Just a blanket statement covering anybody overclocking is misleading.
Click to expand...


Over clocking is very misleading, especially since depending on what you do may or may not affect the system. If you are crunching tons of pure data or say rendering digital audio, I would go for the stability of the system, because over clocking could royally F that up. OTOH, say you are gaming, where as a lot of stress and instruction sets are handled by the GPU which means that the CPU can do other things, that is where over clocking may make a difference.

Remember that pure bandwidth is not the end all be all performance factor in processors anymore. Data through put does help when doing certain functions but there are plenty of functions where stability would matter most.

Synchronous transactions versus asynchronous transactions for example. When doing things that are synchronous you are only as fast as your slowest component, which most of the time will be disk I/O so processor speed doesn't have much of a factor in that. Disk I/O will always be a bottle neck factor.

So, yes, I can gladly say that with a straight face because benchmarking and video games are only a small part of what computers are used for. While most users on this forum tend to use their computers mainly for gaming or multimedia not everyone does.

Also, when you start pumping out instruction sets at a higher bandwidth it can cause all sorts of stability issues. There are so many factors that no one covers with over clocking because they want to market you the third party hardware and want your money for it.

I am not saying it won't help but I mean come on, can you tell the difference between 50 FPS and 70FPS? Probably not.
 
tlarkin said:
I am not saying it won't help but I mean come on, can you tell the difference between 50 FPS and 70FPS? Probably not.
Click to expand...

no but i can tell the diff between 20 and 30 and thats all that matters. Also, I do a lot of video encoding, my Q6600 at 3.2Ghz encodes a 1080p video in 1 hour as opposed to 1 and a half on stock.
Also, overclockers know how to test their systems for stability so its not like our CPUs are just going to blow up in the middle of something important
 
Last edited:
gamerman4 said:
no but i can tell the diff between 20 and 30 and thats all that matters. Also, I do a lot of video encoding, my Q6600 at 3.2Ghz encodes a 1080p video in 1 hour as opposed to 1 and a half on stock.
Click to expand...

And you are more likely to get encoding errors with an over clock. Which was my main point to begin with, and once you hit a certain point you can never go faster than your hard drive, and disk I/O will always be a factor.
 
ka5row said:
Why Overclock and make a CPU do something it was not met to do :confused: . Just buy a faster processor to start. I am sure it cuts into the life span of whole system. On my new builds I make them last 5 years or so and then go all new just because. And no I don't use my PC for games. But I do like having a very effective system.:D
Click to expand...

wowwww

so you're telling me intel makes a processor at 6ghz? (yes they've hit 6ghz with core 2 duo's) oh wait, no they don't. why overclock? because things go faster when you do. you can NEVER buy a processor at its maximum overclock, intel leaves room for instability and issues with their motherboards and such. if you have a good motherboard and ram, then you can overclock an e8600 (3.33ghz) to 4.5ghz. that's a LOT faster.

and, try with video cards. my HD 4850 in crossfire added about 35% performance to my system. overclocking a single HD 4850 gave me about 20-30% increase in performance... so in essence i got an extra $160 or $170 worth of performance just by overclocking. let's say you had both cards overclocked... well, your performance would go up accordingly.

as far as system life goes, you need upgrades according to what you do with your computer anyways, so who cares you're going to replace the parts in a year or so anyways. for instance, i do some video editing and video conversion... four cores really benefits me, but within the next year they're going to release core i7 processors which will have 4 cores and 4 virtual cores ... not quite twice as fast but definitely up there since it will likely be more overclockable, too. this is something i'm probably going to want and will probably save my money for either that or a newer video card.
 
Last edited:
I overclocked my pc, and I did notice quite an improvement in games when I did so. I dont do video encoding or so tough. (well, i occasionally use matlab or multisim, wich can be heavy on the cpu, never had any problems tough)
 
tlarkin said:
And you are more likely to get encoding errors with an over clock. Which was my main point to begin with, and once you hit a certain point you can never go faster than your hard drive, and disk I/O will always be a factor.
Click to expand...

now you are just reaching for reasons to not overclock.
 
tlarkin said:
Over clocking is very misleading, especially since depending on what you do may or may not affect the system. If you are crunching tons of pure data or say rendering digital audio, I would go for the stability of the system, because over clocking could royally F that up. OTOH, say you are gaming, where as a lot of stress and instruction sets are handled by the GPU which means that the CPU can do other things, that is where over clocking may make a difference.

Remember that pure bandwidth is not the end all be all performance factor in processors anymore. Data through put does help when doing certain functions but there are plenty of functions where stability would matter most.

Synchronous transactions versus asynchronous transactions for example. When doing things that are synchronous you are only as fast as your slowest component, which most of the time will be disk I/O so processor speed doesn't have much of a factor in that. Disk I/O will always be a bottle neck factor.

So, yes, I can gladly say that with a straight face because benchmarking and video games are only a small part of what computers are used for. While most users on this forum tend to use their computers mainly for gaming or multimedia not everyone does.

Also, when you start pumping out instruction sets at a higher bandwidth it can cause all sorts of stability issues. There are so many factors that no one covers with over clocking because they want to market you the third party hardware and want your money for it.

I am not saying it won't help but I mean come on, can you tell the difference between 50 FPS and 70FPS? Probably not.
Click to expand...

Now I completly agree with that. There is many different factors you have to take into account if you want to overclock. What your really using the computer for, what programs you run, the bottlenecks that you might create with other hardware.

There is two types of overclockers. One that just wants alittle more out of there system with stability included and that understand the relationship of how they are overclocking with the rest of there hardware and the balls to the wall type that they are not for sure if its going to melt into a lump of plastic while the get a drink of water.

I see your point but there is two sides to it. It really comes down to what you want out of your computer, what you do with your computer and how good you are at doing it.
 
why climb mount everest? because it's there lol

my motherboard features overclocking options, therefore i take advantage of them. 25% overclock isn't bad, take all my video conversion times and game fps's and increase performance by 25%.

try crysis... fps is at 25fps. 31.25fps after overclock :O now that's noticeable!
 
Last edited:
gamerman4 said:
now you are just reaching for reasons to not overclock.
Click to expand...

No, I think I know what I am talking about. I do this for a living. I used to sub contract for a company called Pro-Onsite who later got bought out by Conexio, look them up online. I used to do all sorts of after hours IT contract work for major advertising firms, recording studios, an independent news paper, a couple of small doctor's offices and a law firm or two. I don't do it any more because I make enough money now to not have to work two jobs.

When I went to go work on a render farm at a advertising firm they didn't over clock anything at all. Instead they had the environment work for them.

Again I am not saying it won't hurt but it lowers stability and it doesn't always improve real world application performance which is why it can be misleading. In some cases it may boost but in most cases if you have a high end system to begin with it won't make a difference. You can create tons of bottle necks and you will never get over the disk I/O bottle neck until everything runs solid state and disk storage is actually a ton faster than mechanical moving parts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top