Does 'extreme' o'clocking serve a major purpose at this point?

[createdAmonster]

As most people who just decided to acquire a SB setup - upgrading from a X3110@3.6GHz - I will most likely also will be o'clocking it to get an added boost of performance.

However, I noticed in the very few benchmarks, performance tests, or what you will call it, that are relevant to my question, when playing at 1920x1080 or higher, the CPUs, o'clocked will only show a marginal speed increase, particularly in games.

I will stipulate that the main reason why I decided to upgrade, was because I needed slightly more oomph for gaming, especially on BFBC2, since I ditched my CRT - I also confess I am a very late adopter for various reasons. If it weren't for BFBC2 I would probably ride it out until fall.

The last 2 generations of CPUs appear to have plenty of power, so much that at those specified resolutions the GPU appears to be the bottleneck, even when the CPUs are o'clocked.

So, when I see people report back that their SB only clocks at a 'measly' 4.5MHz I have to scratch my head; I understand it's not as high a speed increase, as I'd hope my CPU would o'clock, but will 200-500MHz amount to a significant performance increase in games?
If, yes, then I'd push my CPU even more, but it appears that past a certain speed the increase in not substantial enough to keep the CPU running at those excess speeds.
Lastly, to me, one of the greater advantages of SB is the fact that despite being o'clocked the CPUs remain extremely efficient, and that saved me the expense of getting a new PSU. That is, until I get a second Radeon 6950.

So, what's your take on this?

 

[drizek]

Overclocking doesn't help in games, basically. Buy a new video card if you aren't getting good performance.

A fast CPU will help you in Starcraft and Civilization, but thats about it. Just about any shooter game at 1080p will be bottlenecked by the video card.

 

[createdAmonster]

That is my point exactly. That fact does not prevent some people for feel deeply disappointed for not being able to o'clock the new SB processors to 4.9 and over 5GHz.
If I hit the wall at 4.6 or even 4.5, to me that will be a more than decent o'clock.
Because, like I said, my main use is gaming. And the 1-2 fps gain, if that I will not even notice.

But I also understand that to some people it's a sport to gain bragging rights.

 

[Diogenes2]

" But I also understand that to some people it's a sport to gain bragging rights. " This...

Extreme overclockers spend more time dicking around with their rigs, than they ever do accomplishing anything otherwise useful, or so it seems..

 

[drizek]

The only practical use I have found for overclocking my PII past 3.2Ghz was so I could watch this video at the "original" resolution of 4k. It starts to play smoothly at past 3.5GHz using the Flash 10.2 beta.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdQ0i3v_KVY&feature=related

 

[Idontcare]

You're not operating under some misplaced assumption that the only thing people need fast computers for is for gaming...are you?

 

[drizek]

F@H specifically says to not use overclocked systems, and I still see a lot of people here say they use their OCs for DC.

 

[createdAmonster]

You're not operating under some misplaced assumption that the only thing people need fast computers for is for gaming...are you?

No, I am not. But I assume there are a lot of gamers in these forums.

It's a good question you raise though.
Could you, as an admin conduct a poll on what primary use their o'clocked system is for?

Why not adding a secondary use category for that poll?

I am curious to find out.

 

[Idontcare]

F@H has good reason to say that, if your system is not stable then the WU's it turns will be computed incorrectly and are unusable by the F@H group.

That is why you will find people here who say you should test your rig's OC with F@H even if you don't use the app for any other purpose.

But in general it is good advice to tell people to not run with scissors if they are the sort of people who need to be told such.

 

[Idontcare]

No, I am not. But I assume there are a lot of gamers in these forums.

It's a good question you raise though.
Could you, as an admin conduct a poll on what primary use their o'clocked system is for?

Why not adding a secondary use category for that poll?

I am curious to find out.

Anyone can make a poll thread. When you create your thread you will notice a box you can check that says something like "add a poll to this thread".

There are a lot of gamers on these forums, but don't mistake your statistics from these forums as being representative of the rest of the world and those consumers who OC their rigs.

Maybe you meant to open your thread with the caveat "Of all you gamers out there who OC, do you find your OC gives you more than enough power for games?"...that is a whole different question, if that is what you meant, versus how your thread reads right now.

Also please note I am not posting as a moderator, the only time I am posting as a moderator is when the text of my post is all in bold and is signed as "Moderator Idontcare"...these posts here in your thread are posted as a member, not mod.

 

[Axon]

Overclocking squeezes a little more performance out of certain games. WoW, for example, likes the faster core speed...but you'll only see the gain in a crowded area.

It's more useful in other computing.

 

[bryanW1995]

Overclocking doesn't help in games, basically. Buy a new video card if you aren't getting good performance.

A fast CPU will help you in Starcraft and Civilization, but thats about it. Just about any shooter game at 1080p will be bottlenecked by the video card.

1. civ5
2. DAO
3. crysis
4. sc2

to name 4 recent AAA titles.

the above games will benefit substantially from faster cpu speeds. almost all other modern games will also benefit from a faster cpu, though in many games it does greatly depend on the settings you use for gaming. even if you're gaming at such ultra settings that you're "completely" gpu-bound, a faster cpu will still typically benefit you with better min frame rates.

 

[createdAmonster]

I thought I had emphasized the use of games in my initial post, how it was the main reason why I am upgrading, etc. and I came with not statistics in hand.
If there are any uses where a 500 o'clock will amount to a considerable increase in computing power, then I wouldn't mine anyone chiming in and justifying their quest for the last MHz.
It was never meant to criticize or mock those who do.
To each their own.

 

[drizek]

F@H has good reason to say that, if your system is not stable then the WU's it turns will be computed incorrectly and are unusable by the F@H group.

That is why you will find people here who say you should test your rig's OC with F@H even if you don't use the app for any other purpose.

But in general it is good advice to tell people to not run with scissors if they are the sort of people who need to be told such.

So if you send back incorrect WUs, they will know? I always thought that you shouldn't do it because they would actually use the bad WUs during their research.

 

[BD231]

These dumb ass anti-overclocking threads need to stop, NOW. Not to be rude but this is about the third or fourth thread I've seen on the matter within the last few months or so and it's clear to me now anyone to stupid to realize there are not tangible gains to be had by pushing your hardware to its max potential are simply not educated on the matter or have little expeirence overclocking themselves.

Do you really think I bought this Phenom II x3 at 3.7ghz to run it at stock 2.8ghz?? Hell no, I buy a chip for its potential like any overclocker would. How else are you suppose to get the most out of your dollar??

Sure floating point units are so great right now that gaming won't really show you any huge gains. But integer calculations (encoding, decoding, rendering, you know, pretty much anything that a computer is actually useful for to the working class of America) on the other hand benefits hugely from overclocking. So in fact, someone eaking out an extra 1ghz on their processor is extremely valuable no matter how you look at it. The people who don't overclock are too lazy to find stable settings, convince themselves it's not worth the effort or just don't know any better.

You wouldn't ask a race care driver why he's always tweaking his car for more speed. The only difference is an overclockers finish line is a task completed alert. Get with the times OP, as long as people are aware Intel/AMD sell processors with deliberately hidden potential we will continue the exploit.

 

[drizek]

I overclock because it is fun, but it is not really too "smart" of a thing to do. First off, we spend more on our parts than other people do. For example, the K-series chips have a straight overclocking tax in the price. Then you spend twice as much for a motherboard, power supply, ram, etc. than you really need to. Then you buy an expensive case and expensive cooling, and you end up with a loud and hot system unless you spend even more money on even better cooling. And then, once you've done all that, you have a system with terrible performance/watt compared to a stock system.

IMO, overclocking reaches the point of diminishing returns once you start increasing voltages. OCing until you get the highest stable frequency at 1.325v is great. Running your CPU at 1.55V just so you can go from 3.2Ghz to 3.7Ghz seems pretty useless to me. Of course, I do it anyway, because it's fun.

 

[Baasha]

This is a good question and the answer is somewhat straightforward.

People overclock their systems mainly for bragging rights and a false sense of superiority with regards to their rigs compared to others'.

As far as tangible differences are concerned, it is usually not the case with OC'd systems.

I would think that certain instances such as multi-tasking (with HT), rendering/editing videos, audio, photos, OC'ing might enable people to apply effects more quickly and render more efficiently.

However, it is analogous to having a very high-powered car. Is "all that" horsepower and torque "needed" or "useful"? Probably not since the speed limit on most public freeways is 65mph. Why do people invest so much into their cars (and rigs) then? I guess they want to just have some fun!

I wouldn't analyze the intent and purpose behind OC'ing too much. Do it if you are comfortable risking your equipment but have fun at it and learn more about computers in the process.

 

[Markfw]

This is a good question and the answer is somewhat straightforward.

People overclock their systems mainly for bragging rights and a false sense of superiority with regards to their rigs compared to others'.

As far as tangible differences are concerned, it is usually not the case with OC'd systems.

I would think that certain instances such as multi-tasking (with HT), rendering/editing videos, audio, photos, OC'ing might enable people to apply effects more quickly and render more efficiently.

However, it is analogous to having a very high-powered car. Is "all that" horsepower and torque "needed" or "useful"? Probably not since the speed limit on most public freeways is 65mph. Why do people invest so much into their cars (and rigs) then? I guess they want to just have some fun!

I wouldn't analyze the intent and purpose behind OC'ing too much. Do it if you are comfortable risking your equipment but have fun at it and learn more about computers in the process.

That is a totally false conclusion. For the moment, I will speak only for myself. With a stock I7 920 or 950, using F@H you will never (or rarely) finish a 2684 unit before the deadline, and hence will not even get credit for 3 days of 100% cpu usage. With a 4 ghz one, you can always make the deadline. And the points are higher as well.

As for other reasons, people may not want to wait for things to finish, and some make their livelihood on their computer. To say they do it only for bragging right is just WRONG.

 

[Markfw]

So if you send back incorrect WUs, they will know? I always thought that you shouldn't do it because they would actually use the bad WUs during their research.

If your computer is not stable, they won't even finish. You have to test for stability before even starting to crunch. Otherwise, you are just wasting your electricity.

 

[RavenSEAL]

like IDC said above, folding and some games.

 

[createdAmonster]

These dumb ass anti-overclocking threads need to stop, NOW. .... .

Hmmm.... Note to self: Start new overclocking thread tomorrow.

If this thread appears like an anti-o'clocking thread to you, well... what can I say? Is it due to lack of sleep?
And you appear to take this hobby way to seriously... I mean we're way past obsession here, to the point of being paranoid, feeling you're under attack.

FIY, I do o'clock, and try not to be lazy about doing it. But I will weigh the pros and cons of a given o'clock. And most likely will settle for a CPU frequency that will give me the best efficiency.

Thanks for watching!

 

[LoneNinja]

I overclock just for the extra performance, I don't even need it since I'm usually underclocked from default settings anyways.

 

[peonyu]

Performance and cost reasons here. I had a 60$ E2100 cpu a few years back, it barely cut it for games out of the box...Overclocked it to 3.5ghz [from 2ghz or around there], and games ran without a hitch. New and old games alike. I saved a hundred or so dollars since I didnt buy a chip rated for 3ghz+.

Likewise with new cpus today. At stock they will run anything out there today, but in a year or two from now ? Some games / apps will bog them down. Buy a new chip at that point or overclock the one you have now...I go with the latter.

 

[taltamir]

1. civ5
2. DAO
3. crysis
4. sc2

to name 4 recent AAA titles.

the above games will benefit substantially from faster cpu speeds. almost all other modern games will also benefit from a faster cpu, though in many games it does greatly depend on the settings you use for gaming. even if you're gaming at such ultra settings that you're "completely" gpu-bound, a faster cpu will still typically benefit you with better min frame rates.

+1

overclocking is great for improving your min-fps (typically CPU bound, not GPU bound) as well as for certain games that are CPU hungry.

Also, if a game is particularly GPU hungry you can just lower the graphical settings and you are golden. If a game is CPU hungry you can overclock, buy a faster CPU, or learn to live with stutter.

And its not fair to look only at top of the line 1000$ CPUs handle modern games with ease, people on a tight budget with a lot of free time (ex: high school students) can stretch their dollars further by overclocking a cheaper CPU. And even those top of the line 1000$ CPUs could be faster for some games.

 

[drizek]

How many people even game on the PC anymore? It isn't even a good experience outside of Steam/Blizzard games. Most of the games these days are just poorly done console ports. If you want to stretch your gaming dollar, you can find an Xbox 360 for $150. Unless you have multiple monitors, the graphics on the XBOX are going to be about as good as what you get on the PC anyway, seeing as how developers rarely even bother to make games which actually take advantage of high end graphics chips. EPIC right now is more interested in developing for the iPad than in the PC. I stuck to my PC guns and skipped this generation of consoles, but now I feel that when the PS4/Xbox 720 come out, I would probably just buy one of them instead of a new video card.


OT taltamir, but on what OS do you have ZFS running?