Is there a difference between overclocking to "stock" frequencies...

Kromis

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2006
5,214
1
81
I'm sorry if this question has been answered already but I'm just wondering why people would buy the higher stock frequency instead of overclocking the lower one (I know some people can't overclock but still, some people that do know how to overclock seem to buy the processor with higher stock frequencies).

Is the 3500+ "safer" or "better" than the 3000+/3200+? I know that because they have the same core, they *should* overclock the same.

Once again, if this question has been answered, I'm sorry. If you could, please link me to the answer!

Thank you!
 

secretanchitman

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2001
9,352
23
91
well, because people might want warranties on their cpu (one voids the cpus warranty if ANY overclocking is done), or they want to run lower voltages at the higher frequency (that doesnt sound right...maybe its because its 3:20AM as i type this).

or they buy the higher frequency cpu so their overclock would be higher (higher multiplier).

there are a lot of reasons for this...yet its too early in the morning and im getting tired now, haha...
 

Furen

Golden Member
Oct 21, 2004
1,567
0
0
It's not just about KNOWING how to overclock but rather wanting to. Most of my systems are actually not overclocked eventhough I consider myself pretty good at doing it. There's beauty to getting out-of-the-box performance without having to tweak the hell out of a system (though that can be pretty fun too), then there's the fact that sometimes you dont dare overclock (if, for example, you do sensitive work on a system... you wouldn't want to find out that prime95 isnt that great of a stability tester when working on a project), and, like you said, there's the fact that not everyone knows how to do it and that sometimes the system is meant to go to a novice that can't troubleshoot anything that goes wrong.

That said, higher speed bins are usually better overclockers than lower ones. With A64s there's probably little to no difference between the lower speed bins because AMD's 90nm process is so mature but once you start getting to 2.6GHz+ it's almost a given than the higher end parts will overclock better simply because they work at higher clocks using stock voltage. And no, just because they have the same core they will not clock the same, they almost never will, anyway. They have the same theoretical UPPER limit but pretty much every chip should clock differently. Now, if the price difference is small enough then going for a higher speed bin is worth it, because having a higher multiplier allows you to overclock without stressing the motherboard/memory (if not running a divider) as much.
 

ShadowOfMyself

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2006
4,227
2
0
one voids the cpus warranty if ANY overclocking is done

Ok I have this really stupid question but... how does someone know you overclocked your cpu if you clock it back to stock?
 

ShadowOfMyself

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2006
4,227
2
0
Originally posted by: Ridesy
Shadow,

Not a stupid question, as I'd like to know that too???

Ridesy

Lol, ive wondered this for some time, everyone says overclocking voids warranty, and its easy to see why when you volt mod video cards etc, but when you're just upping some mhz bar through software and can change it to stock anytime, how can anyone prove you oc'd?
 

letdown427

Golden Member
Jan 3, 2006
1,594
1
0
Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
Originally posted by: Ridesy
Shadow,

Not a stupid question, as I'd like to know that too???

Ridesy

Lol, ive wondered this for some time, everyone says overclocking voids warranty, and its easy to see why when you volt mod video cards etc, but when you're just upping some mhz bar through software and can change it to stock anytime, how can anyone prove you oc'd?


People here have some kind of feeling of ethics. Or morals. Or something. They'd rather you 'acted like a man', admitted you'd fried your chip, and bought a nice new one instead of tricking the poor CPU company into replacing your chip free.

 

ShadowOfMyself

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2006
4,227
2
0
Originally posted by: letdown427
Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
Originally posted by: Ridesy
Shadow,

Not a stupid question, as I'd like to know that too???

Ridesy

Lol, ive wondered this for some time, everyone says overclocking voids warranty, and its easy to see why when you volt mod video cards etc, but when you're just upping some mhz bar through software and can change it to stock anytime, how can anyone prove you oc'd?


People here have some kind of feeling of ethics. Or morals. Or something. They'd rather you 'acted like a man', admitted you'd fried your chip, and bought a nice new one instead of tricking the poor CPU company into replacing your chip free.

I thought there was a way of proving it? :roll:

Of course there are morals, but I wasnt talking about that... Thats up to each one to choose if they want to take advantage of a company or not


 

Bobthelost

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2005
4,360
0
0
As far as i know there isn't any such way to test it. Or if there is such a test it's not used.
 

theMan

Diamond Member
Mar 17, 2005
4,386
0
0
i dont see how there could be a test. you could be able to see if a CPU was severely overvolted, but you couldnt tell if it was from overclocking, or a bad PSU, or mobo.
 

996GT2

Diamond Member
Jun 23, 2005
5,212
0
76
Unless you put a lot more voltage through your CPU than it was intended to take and actually left physical burn marks on it...then there is pretty much no way of proving you fried your chip by overclocking. Of course, if you don't up the voltage too much or stay at stock voltage like me, then there shouldn't be any problems.
 

Kromis

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2006
5,214
1
81
Originally posted by: secretanchitman
well, because people might want warranties on their cpu (one voids the cpus warranty if ANY overclocking is done), or they want to run lower voltages at the higher frequency (that doesnt sound right...maybe its because its 3:20AM as i type this).

or they buy the higher frequency cpu so their overclock would be higher (higher multiplier).

there are a lot of reasons for this...yet its too early in the morning and im getting tired now, haha...

So....if you buy a processor at a higher stock speed, then it will have more multipliers to choose from than the other ones? If so, I never knew that!
 

Kromis

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2006
5,214
1
81
Originally posted by: Furen
It's not just about KNOWING how to overclock but rather wanting to. Most of my systems are actually not overclocked eventhough I consider myself pretty good at doing it. There's beauty to getting out-of-the-box performance without having to tweak the hell out of a system (though that can be pretty fun too), then there's the fact that sometimes you dont dare overclock (if, for example, you do sensitive work on a system... you wouldn't want to find out that prime95 isnt that great of a stability tester when working on a project), and, like you said, there's the fact that not everyone knows how to do it and that sometimes the system is meant to go to a novice that can't troubleshoot anything that goes wrong.

That said, higher speed bins are usually better overclockers than lower ones. With A64s there's probably little to no difference between the lower speed bins because AMD's 90nm process is so mature but once you start getting to 2.6GHz+ it's almost a given than the higher end parts will overclock better simply because they work at higher clocks using stock voltage. And no, just because they have the same core they will not clock the same, they almost never will, anyway. They have the same theoretical UPPER limit but pretty much every chip should clock differently. Now, if the price difference is small enough then going for a higher speed bin is worth it, because having a higher multiplier allows you to overclock without stressing the motherboard/memory (if not running a divider) as much.

Oh nice! Thanks for explaining it thoroughly!
 

jkresh

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,436
0
71
in terms of multipliers think about it (if fsb is 200mhz then a 2ghz chip would have to have a multiplier of 10, at 2.2ghz it would be 11...), most chips now allow you to lower your multiplier but only high end ones alow you to raise it as well (fx, looks like the new intel ee ones also)
 

Kromis

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2006
5,214
1
81
Thanks for your inputs, you guys! They were really helpful!

If you guys have anymore things to add, please do so!
 

orangat

Golden Member
Jun 7, 2004
1,579
0
0
What a strange question. People buy faster rated cpus because the cpus are guaranteed to run at a higher speed.

Lower rated cpus may be sold that way because they were binned at a lower speed grade (failed at higher speeds). Current AMD/Intel cpu's are pretty good at overclocking but its not always the case.
 

The I

Member
Aug 6, 2005
26
0
0
Originally posted by: jkresh
in terms of multipliers think about it (if fsb is 200mhz then a 2ghz chip would have to have a multiplier of 10, at 2.2ghz it would be 11...), most chips now allow you to lower your multiplier but only high end ones alow you to raise it as well (fx, looks like the new intel ee ones also)

Just wondering: does intel offer lower multipliers to? - I know that on non-FX AMDs you have the default multiplier and all of the multipliers 'below' it, but I thought you were simply locked at default on intel processors.

Isn't that why speed-step doesn't 'underclock' P4s very far (2,8 ghz is the minimum I believe) btw?
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
I buy at a higher speed to run everything at stock, at a speed tested and guaranteed by the chipmaker.

OCing can be a fun test of skill or a way to save money, but 10 years out of college and after playing with hardware for a couple of decades I'd rather pay to have everything "just work" and spend time using the PC instead of tweaking it.

People new to OCing often push to the edge of stability, or even a bit past it where things only seem stable. Then they wonder why their games crash, and complain about having to reinstall Windows every few months because it got corrupted "somehow."

Of course I'm sure no one reading this has ever made that mistake :)
 

Kromis

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2006
5,214
1
81
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
I buy at a higher speed to run everything at stock, at a speed tested and guaranteed by the chipmaker.

OCing can be a fun test of skill or a way to save money, but 10 years out of college and after playing with hardware for a couple of decades I'd rather pay to have everything "just work" and spend time using the PC instead of tweaking it.

People new to OCing often push to the edge of stability, or even a bit past it where things only seem stable. Then they wonder why their games crash, and complain about having to reinstall Windows every few months because it got corrupted "somehow."

Of course I'm sure no one reading this has ever made that mistake :)

Do dual-cores (talking about the X2 3800+) overclock as well or better than single-cores?
 

betasub

Platinum Member
Mar 22, 2006
2,677
0
0
Originally posted by: Kromis
Do dual-cores (talking about the X2 3800+) overclock as well or better than single-cores?

On a purely statistical basis, you are more likely to get a core that doesn't OC well in a dual-core package than in single-core.

Physically, in terms of manufacture, tracing, revision, voltage etc, they are pretty much identical to their single-core brethren.
 

Bobthelost

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2005
4,360
0
0
When you've got two cores in close proximity you're going to have to be a lot more careful about heating, also for one reason or another with 939s the max safe recomended voltage is .1 V lower on dual cores than single.

Dual cores don't overclock quite as well as single.
 

Kromis

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2006
5,214
1
81
Originally posted by: Bobthelost
When you've got two cores in close proximity you're going to have to be a lot more careful about heating, also for one reason or another with 939s the max safe recomended voltage is .1 V lower on dual cores than single.

Dual cores don't overclock quite as well as single.

Originally posted by: betasub
Originally posted by: Kromis
Do dual-cores (talking about the X2 3800+) overclock as well or better than single-cores?

On a purely statistical basis, you are more likely to get a core that doesn't OC well in a dual-core package than in single-core.

Physically, in terms of manufacture, tracing, revision, voltage etc, they are pretty much identical to their single-core brethren.

Alright! Cool! I guess I'm gonna go with a 3500+ for socket AM2 then!