Over Clocking CPU -- Worth the effort?

Printable View

11-08-2010, 01:42 AM
Vociferate

Over Clocking CPU -- Worth the effort?

Right-o, so I had a massive post to ask a simple question but closed Firefox and lost it. So I'll make a tl;dr post, since it should achieve the same thing.

I am running an AMD 965 BE @ stock which is 3.4GHz and the temperatures float at around 31°-35°C. Under load they reached at most 54°.

I am using a Noctua UD14 or w/e the model was, so I am using an after-market cooler.

Ideally I would like to get it too 3.8GHz, but is it really worth the effort? Would a 3.6-3.8 OC be noticeable?

I am not fussed about the lifespan of the CPU, since I replace them every 12 months at most, anyway.
11-08-2010, 01:55 AM
Sajuuk

Yes.

That is all.
11-08-2010, 03:57 AM
ZorbaTheGeek

With all overclocking, your mileage may vary.

It is always worth trying but I've had the occasional CPU I've just been unable to stabilize overclocked. My current Quad box rig is 3 years old, at Core 2 Dual 2.53Ghz currently running at 4Ghz on a decent air cooler with only the tiniest increase in core voltage.

Any overclock is a bonus, effectively free performance, but find a decent stable speed. An "Almost Stable" CPU will drive you mad.
11-08-2010, 01:49 PM
Ughmahedhurtz

The real question is, why are you wanting to OC it? Are you noticing performance issues? If so, what kind of performance issues? What's the rest of your setup?

If you're happy with the current performance, then what's the point of OC'ing it and thus introducing the possibility of hardware failures or compatibility problems?

[edit] And if your answer is, "Because I just want to do it lol" then why are you asking us? Just go do it.
11-08-2010, 02:03 PM
Sajuuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ughmahedhurtz

introducing the possibility of hardware failures or compatibility problems?.

What kind of 'compatibility' problems could arise from overclocking? Regarding hardware failures, three things are involved: Power supply, motherboard, and the chip itself. If the motherboard can't stand the increased power load, it'll fail. If the power supply can't supply the proper amount of power, you'll have instability. And the chip itself will only be fried if one of the other two fail or if you put too much voltage into it.
11-08-2010, 08:00 PM
Ughmahedhurtz

Don't forget memory issues. I fought that for a few weeks a while ago when overclocking my Q6600 from 2.4GHz to 3.2GHz. It was definitely worth it but the RAM problem was a huge PITA that never showed up under stock clocking tests.
11-08-2010, 09:21 PM
Sajuuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ughmahedhurtz

Don't forget memory issues. I fought that for a few weeks a while ago when overclocking my Q6600 from 2.4GHz to 3.2GHz. It was definitely worth it but the RAM problem was a huge PITA that never showed up under stock clocking tests.

Oh, yes. I forgot memory, but failed/faulty memory will cause other problems that might come to light during overclocking. A faulty memory stick itself I don't see destroying hardware other than itself.
11-09-2010, 01:22 AM
Vociferate

Well through the BIOS I am now floating at 3.75GHz.

Aside from the 'because I can & want too' how can I test the improvements?
Maybe it is a bit strange, but I like to view results aside from seeing "3.70GHz" or passing a Prime 95 Test.

:o

But anyway, thanks for the replies. :D
11-09-2010, 01:31 AM
Ughmahedhurtz

Overnight stress tests with Prime95/98 or Octo<something>. Just make sure it stresses all of your physical CPU cores at once and uses a dataset larger than your CPU's cache size.
11-09-2010, 10:39 AM
Sajuuk

Personally I use Intel Burn Test.
11-09-2010, 10:49 AM
outdrsyguy1

I plan on OC'ing before cata, even with tuned down settings on all my alts, I still peg 100% cpu load in Dal and it gets choppy, I'm sure the new Org will be worse than Dal and I want to run smooth for one.
I'm on a q9550 @ std 2.83 ghz with 8 gigs of ram, running on a SSD drive.
I managed to get it up to around 3.2 without too much trouble but I felt it was running too hot and I need to install my aftermarket cooler.
11-09-2010, 10:53 AM
Catamer

OC never works well for me

I've never been able to OC anything and still have it stable for all of time.
I never can find anything that says how to do it with my motherboard, etc.
The current Asus P6X58D says it auto-overclocks only to say it failed. I'm currently using Corsair Dominators and using the XMP profile seems to work fine but my main CPU is only at 3.34G when it was really rated for 3.2G ( not much of an increase ).

I think my raid-0 of some SSD drives got me more performance than any over clocking would.
It's kind of a balancing act between CPU+Memory/Video/Disk. improve the slowest if you can afford it.
11-09-2010, 02:03 PM
Sajuuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catamer

I've never been able to OC anything and still have it stable for all of time.
I never can find anything that says how to do it with my motherboard, etc.
The current Asus P6X58D says it auto-overclocks only to say it failed. I'm currently using Corsair Dominators and using the XMP profile seems to work fine but my main CPU is only at 3.34G when it was really rated for 3.2G ( not much of an increase ).

I think my raid-0 of some SSD drives got me more performance than any over clocking would.
It's kind of a balancing act between CPU+Memory/Video/Disk. improve the slowest if you can afford it.

Define stable for all of time, and you're doing it wrong.
11-09-2010, 11:58 PM
Sam DeathWalker

I say no.

If you want a faster processor go buy a faster processor ......

Imho you want a faster clock speed regardless of number of cores. I run 2 cores at 3.2Ghz (amd), I think thats better then say 4 cores at 2.8 Ghz, for wow, not 100percent sure though.
11-10-2010, 10:52 AM
Sajuuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam DeathWalker

I say no.

If you want a faster processor go buy a faster processor ......

Imho you want a faster clock speed regardless of number of cores. I run 2 cores at 3.2Ghz (amd), I think thats better then say 4 cores at 2.8 Ghz, for wow, not 100percent sure though.

Sooooo. I take it you don't like free performance? What's the deal with taking a 2.66Ghz CPU and then making it run at 3.8 for absolutely free (well, aside from slightly higher power draw, depending on your voltage). a 920/930 is the best bang for the buck currently available from intel. I think the 950 is the same price as a 930, and I've heard at times (not often, haven't payed much attention to it) that it doesn't overclock nearly as well as a 920/930. And then there's the huge bump in price for any processors over that for MINIMAL (.16Ghz) bumps in speed.

I took my i7-920 from 2.66Ghz to 3.8Ghz for almost a year before I decided to switch form factors and cooling solutions. My computer ran like a champ during that time. I just haven't taken the time to OC it recently.

Sooo. Above i7-960/970/975/965 performance for the price of a 920? Hell yeah.
11-10-2010, 03:21 PM
Ughmahedhurtz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sajuuk

Sooooo. I take it you don't like free performance? What's the deal with taking a 2.66Ghz CPU and then making it run at 3.8 for absolutely free (well, aside from slightly higher power draw, depending on your voltage). a 920/930 is the best bang for the buck currently available from intel. I think the 950 is the same price as a 930, and I've heard at times (not often, haven't payed much attention to it) that it doesn't overclock nearly as well as a 920/930. And then there's the huge bump in price for any processors over that for MINIMAL (.16Ghz) bumps in speed.

I took my i7-920 from 2.66Ghz to 3.8Ghz for almost a year before I decided to switch form factors and cooling solutions. My computer ran like a champ during that time. I just haven't taken the time to OC it recently.

Sooo. Above i7-960/970/975/965 performance for the price of a 920? Hell yeah.

/agree

For some processors and back before the Intel Core2 series CPUs became available, I would have said no, definitely not worth the pain. Nowadays, the Core2 CPUs overclock so easy and with so little additional heat generation, it's almost a no brainer. Caveat is that if you're buying bargain brands for your motherboard and RAM, you may have issues.
11-10-2010, 07:27 PM
ZorbaTheGeek

I've overclocked every CPU I've owned since pushing my IBM Blue Lightning (a 486 DX4 clone) from 75 to 100Mhz and with silicon yield rates getting ever better the chances of getting a "poor" chip are less than they used to be.

I love free speed.

It is very likely that overclocking will reduce the lifespan of your processor. But it will be obsolete long before the end of its "natural", un-overclocked life. Besides... I can buy two cheap CPUs for less than the price of a top of the range one, who cares if it dies.
11-10-2010, 10:53 PM
Sam DeathWalker

I agree that the 920 is the best bang / buck for sure.

If you are stable at the higher speed then thats great, I really prefer stable systems to OC systems.

But because the cpu is almost never the bottleneck in wow (of course more cpu speed is good for other applications), I don't see much reason to overclock for wow. But if its stable then you have nothing to lose (ya your cpu might wear out in 5 years instead of 10 .... big deal).
11-11-2010, 04:33 PM
Sajuuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam DeathWalker

I agree that the 920 is the best bang / buck for sure.

If you are stable at the higher speed then thats great, I really prefer stable systems to OC systems.

But because the cpu is almost never the bottleneck in wow (of course more cpu speed is good for other applications), I don't see much reason to overclock for wow. But if its stable then you have nothing to lose (ya your cpu might wear out in 5 years instead of 10 .... big deal).

Ever hear of stress testing?

Quote:

I really prefer stable systems to OC systems.

So you mean you prefer stock stable systems to potentially unstable OC systems? That's what stress testing is for. You test your system to the extreme to find if it's stable JUST so instability doesn't come up during normal use. World of Warcraft, even five instances doesn't create a bottleneck, but overclocking can create more headroom for other applications.

As far as system life degradation from overclocking it's implied but UNPROVEN (far as I know). Think about the binning process. You have 25 chips from one wafer. 17 of those chips are binned as 920 chips based on how they perform compared to various specs. 3 are binned as 950s, and 5 are binned as 965s.

25 chips, all from the same wafer, with some of them sold as different sub-chips.

Overclocking involves: running at higher than stock speeds and voltages. Not much else. Even IF overclocking could be proven to reduce processor life by even 50% (BULLSHIT), then, say that chip with a 10 year life would be reduced to 5 years. In five years there could be two new generations of processors out, along with motherboard chipsets, and 3-5 new generations of graphics cards. Assuming your system stays static, five years is a great lifetime for a system.
11-11-2010, 06:44 PM
Ughmahedhurtz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam DeathWalker

If you are stable at the higher speed then thats great, I really prefer stable systems to OC systems.

False dichotomy. Has been for several years now.
11-12-2010, 03:03 AM
Sam DeathWalker

Everything Sajuuk says the post before last is correct.

Ya the only possible disadvantage of overclocking (if its stable) is increased heat reducing the life of the cpu but like he correctly states its going to be obsolete by the time it dies anyway.