I just realized, I don't have any overclocked CPUs/APUs in use right now.

[VirtualLarry]

Sudden realization.

My R5 1600 CPUs, seem more responsive and more performant, at stock speeds, with boost/XFR enabled and whatnot. (My main rig has a 120mm AIO on it.)

My other rigs, I've got a i5-7400 and some G4560 CPUs and some G4600 CPUs, and those are all locked Intel CPUs.

I do have some overclocked R3 1200 rigs, that I OCed to 3.8Ghz on air, from 3.1 base, but those are in storage.

I have a 2400G, that will OC, I don't have it hooked up right now, but I've overclocked it in the past. (Still trying to find a completely stable OC, I think.)

So, Ryzen / AM4 still offers some overclocking Thrill, that Intel has largely taken away from the enthusiast, unless one pays the "OC tax" for a Z-chipset board, and a K-series CPU.

But the point that I want you to take away from this thread, is that, for the most part, modern CPU/APUs, have competent self-OC / auto-OC / speed-margining features built-in (XFR, for one), that really significantly reduces the need for manual OC and tweaking, unless you are right at the top bleeding-edge of the product stack. Even then, there's little headroom, with the i7-8086K having a single-core boost of 5Ghz.

 

[epsilon84]

I would say 2nd gen Ryzen does get very close to its clockspeed ceilings with XFR and PB2, especially the higher clocked 2600X / 2700X variants, almost to the point that it's not really beneficial to overclock these chips as often you're sacrificing ST performance for slightly higher MT, all with a big decrease in power efficiency.

I don't agree there is no headroom at the high end, at least not with the top end CFL chips.

8700K avg oc: 4.3 to 5.0/5.1
8086K avg oc: 4.3 to 5.2/5.3

Those are all core turbo overclocks, which is what actually matters. Not sure why you highlighted the 8086K 5.0 single core as its actually almost meaningless - the 2 to 6 core turbos on a 8086K are identical to a 8700K. It's more a symbolic feature than anything useful, more a PR stunt to say 'hey look we have a 5GHz CPU'

 

[Charlie22911]

Overclocking made more sense IMO when you could buy something like an Opteron 165 and Overclock it by 1Ghz+ for relatively cheap. As mentioned, modern hardware is pretty good at boosting up close to its design limits.
These days I find that having to tinker with things when I have so little free time is very unappealing. When I get on the computer I either want to play games or post nonsense on forums without having to deal with any random instability or quirks that can come with overclocking; modern hardware is fast enough.

 

[VirtualLarry]

These days I find that having to tinker with things when I have so little free time is very unappealing. When I get on the computer I either want to play games or post nonsense on forums without having to deal with any random instability or quirks that can come with overclocking; modern hardware is fast enough.

Yeah, time is too short to deal with Blue-screens.

 

[Shmee]

The HEDT intel systems used to OC quite well, starting with X58, and now going to X99. A 5820K used to be the best chip around for a good price, up to 4.5GHz and beyond with some. Was like having an 8700k years ago, though the platform was more expensive.

 

[Tsavo]

I haven't done it in years. Zero plan on doing it ever again. There's a lot to be said for having a stable PC that doesn't tweak out at the drop of a hat.

 

[Eug]

I haven't bothered overclocking in about 15 years.

Before that I was a poor student when mainstream chips were single-core and slow unless you had $$$. These days, you can buy relatively high-clocked 6-core chips for cheap.

 

[coercitiv]

Before that I was a poor student when mainstream chips were single-core and slow unless you had $$$.

My biggest jump in performance, by far, was not the overclock of a single core CPU, but a stock 2c CPU. The jump in responsiveness was unparalleled, only to be matched by my first SSD upgrade. It was my work PC and I remember having a higher (over)clocked single-core chip at home, same arch, same HDD, same Win config - and the X2 chip felt like bringing a jet engine to a propeller dogfight.

Ever since I still overclock my systems within reasonable limits, usually those that easily get me 24/7 stable systems. Whether it's CPU, RAM or GPU clocks, overclocks or undervolting, there are still nice gains to be had if you do your homework and don't aim for the moon.

PS: from a system stability standpoint, undervolting == overclocking

 

[chrisjames61]

I have to agree. Overclocking made sense with a lot of Phenom II cpu's where you could get some hefty overclocks easily. Made even more sense with 6300's and 8350 etc where many times it was easy to get a full GHz or more on all cores if you had a good cooler, good board and a case with good airflow. The APU's of that era don't have the headroom so they weren't as much fun. Plus they needed too much voltage imho. I have a Ryzen 5 1600 which I just overclocked to 3600 all cores. My R5 2400G 3800 on all cores. Not as much fun for little gain imho.

 

[Yuriman]

My biggest jump in performance, by far, was not the overclock of a single core CPU, but a stock 2c CPU. The jump in responsiveness was unparalleled, only to be matched by my first SSD upgrade. It was my work PC and I remember having a higher (over)clocked single-core chip at home, same arch, same HDD, same Win config - and the X2 chip felt like bringing a jet engine to a propeller dogfight.

Ever since I still overclock my systems within reasonable limits, usually those that easily get me 24/7 stable systems. Whether it's CPU, RAM or GPU clocks, overclocks or undervolting, there are still nice gains to be had if you do your homework and don't aim for the moon.

PS: from a system stability standpoint, undervolting == overclocking

I've actually stopped undervolting too. While I can save a good 10-20% of power while under load, my PC spends more time idle and idle power consumption actually goes up, due to what I need to disable to fiddle with voltage.

 

[PingSpike]

I haven't overclocked since the core2 days. I bought a 2500K but never bothered to overclock it. Then I switched to non-K to get access to vt-d which I actually do use.

 

[rchunter]

My last system that was overclocked was my X58 rig. I still have it but I have put it back to stock settings after I installed a x5690 in it.
It's now a secondary rig and I run Mint 19 on it. I really have no intentions on overclocking ever again hopefully.

 

[epsilon84]

I've actually stopped undervolting too. While I can save a good 10-20% of power while under load, my PC spends more time idle and idle power consumption actually goes up, due to what I need to disable to fiddle with voltage.

I used to undevolt back in the Core 2 days, but you're right it makes little sense these days with all the power saving features of modern cpus.

I set up my 8700K @ 5GHz to run at stock voltages when idle, then it ramps up when needed. So I get the best of both worlds - performance on tap when needed, and low power consumption when idle, which is the majority of the time anyway.

Do I actually need 5.0 over the stock 4.3? Probably not. Is it good to have? Most definitely. I overclock because I can, not because I need to.

 

[SPBHM]

the last CPU that I used on my main PC for any significant amount of time with OC was the Pentium E5200 and E5400, that was a while back, and the OC made a big difference; Sandy Bridge killed OC for me, requiring overpriced chipsets and unlocked multipliers, also the default clock/performance looked high enough for me anyway, it's even worse now, you look at the stock clocks of something like the 8700K and why even bother, even the 8400 runs at 3.8GHz...

OC was fun for me when I could buy a lower model and make it perform like the high end ones (like you could make the e5200 look OK against a stock e8400 but for 1/4 of the price or something like that), this is no longer possible because well, lower end CPUs have fewer cores and so on.

that being said, if I go back to AMD, I'm likely to give it a go again, with Intel no, I'm not buying "Z" and "K".

 

[SlowBox]

Man I overclocked a P2B board + 450Mhz P2 CPU lmao. I overclocked that biaaa to 504Mhz. Then for the longest time I didn't know why my UT99 was freezing ,, just screen pause and I was like wtf, so I didn't OC video card but ya it would happen until one day I wen't into the BIOS and changed that 504Mhz beast to 450Mhz,, wala,, My ut99 did not crash. Kinda still sux cuz I wanted a 504Mhz monster LOL

 

[SlowBox]

the last CPU that I used on my main PC for any significant amount of time with OC was the Pentium E5200 and E5400, that was a while back, and the OC made a big difference; Sandy Bridge killed OC for me, requiring overpriced chipsets and unlocked multipliers, also the default clock/performance looked high enough for me anyway, it's even worse now, you look at the stock clocks of something like the 8700K and why even bother, even the 8400 runs at 3.8GHz...

OC was fun for me when I could buy a lower model and make it perform like the high end ones (like you could make the e5200 look OK against a stock e8400 but for 1/4 of the price or something like that), this is no longer possible because well, lower end CPUs have fewer cores and so on.

that being said, if I go back to AMD, I'm likely to give it a go again, with Intel no, I'm not buying "Z" and "K".

LOL SP8HM your funny cool guy... Im laughing, your one pis*ed of guy. But honestly why are we talking about CPU's from 20 years AGO LOL ok Im dead on the floor.. lolol I mean your bringing back horrible memorys of my Athlon XP 2400 OCed to 2.5Ghz.stable as a rock