Keep it simple for me...

[Anomaly1964]

Ok, I have the i5-2500k running at stock speed, which is 3.3 Ghz...

Let's say I OC it to 4.3, WHERE will I notice increases that my EYE can see visually, not a benchmark score?

Will windows load faster?

Will web pages load faster?

Will games play better?

I need to know the real advantages of OCing, not just the "bragging rights" part...

Thanks!

 

[Krynj]

Will Windows load faster? That all depends, but maybe not. You'd notice a huge improvement when loading Windows if you were using an SSD. Overclocking your CPU won't change the seek/read speeds of your hard drive, so, chances are, it might not load up much faster.

Will web pages load faster? Again, really depends on what the rest of your setup is like. How fast is your connection? More CPU horsepower would help your browser load up flash-heavy websites. But making them load quicker as a whole? You probably won't notice much of a difference.

Will games play better? Perhaps. You've already got a pretty awesome video card, so that's good. If you're playing games that are CPU heavy (like WoW), you're likely to notice an improvement. I suspect an extra 1GHz should help any game just a bit.

Best thing to do is just give it a shot. OC your system and test it out. If you don't like the way it behaves, go ahead and undo the OC. Plus, it'd be a waste of money if you didn't OC that K series i7 chip.

 

[spacejamz]

Do some video encoding. Take a medium sized project and try it using stock speed (turn off Turbo so it only runs at 3.3) and then try it overclocked. You should a noticeable difference.

 

[Castiel]

I've noticed that adding an SSD made everything a lot faster then going from 3.5 to 4.5

 

[Idontcare]

Ok, I have the i5-2500k running at stock speed, which is 3.3 Ghz...

Let's say I OC it to 4.3, WHERE will I notice increases that my EYE can see visually, not a benchmark score?

Will windows load faster?

Will web pages load faster?

Will games play better?

I need to know the real advantages of OCing, not just the "bragging rights" part...

Thanks!

A 3.3GHz -> 4.3GHz OC is roughly a 30% OC.

To find out what this feels like why not just intentionally underclock your rig to 2.53GHz and use it for a while (a week or two).

Then "OC" it back to stock 3.3GHz and you will have a pretty decent idea of what a 30% OC does for you with your specific rig.

Then you can decide whether or not you want yet another 30% more of whatever enhancement to your computing experience you found came with the 2.53->3.3GHz "OC".

 

[ShadowVVL]

A 3.3GHz -> 4.3GHz OC is roughly a 30% OC. To find out what this feels like why not just intentionally underclock your rig to 2.53GHz and use it for a while (a week or two). Then "OC" it back to stock 3.3GHz and you will have a pretty decent idea of what a 30% OC does for you with your specific rig. Then you can decide whether or not you want yet another 30% more of whatever enhancement to your computing experience you found came with the 2.53->3.3GHz "OC".

you know thats a great idea. I never thought of doing it that way, 10 points for idontcare, good job:thumbsup:

 

[Krynj]

A 3.3GHz -> 4.3GHz OC is roughly a 30% OC.

To find out what this feels like why not just intentionally underclock your rig to 2.53GHz and use it for a while (a week or two).

Then "OC" it back to stock 3.3GHz and you will have a pretty decent idea of what a 30% OC does for you with your specific rig.

Then you can decide whether or not you want yet another 30% more of whatever enhancement to your computing experience you found came with the 2.53->3.3GHz "OC".

I was thinking that as well, but..why not just OC it anyway, since an i5-2500K can reach 4.3GHz without even thinking about breaking a sweat. Why not just OC it, use DVID to keep it at stock speed and voltage while idling, and be done with it. Idles nice and cool, but then ramps its speed up to 4.3GHz under full load.

 

[Hogan773]

I was thinking that as well, but..why not just OC it anyway, since an i5-2500K can reach 4.3GHz without even thinking about breaking a sweat. Why not just OC it, use DVID to keep it at stock speed and voltage while idling, and be done with it. Idles nice and cool, but then ramps its speed up to 4.3GHz under full load.

This is basically what I've decided to do.....I've got a nice 42x overclock set up which generally runs at 1.22V, still throttles back to 0.9V or less at idle. Since my stock setup generally ran at 1.18 or 1.19, I figure I'm WELL within the realm of safe voltage, so I see this as a "no-brainer" eg why NOT get the extra speed 4.2 vs 3.5 if its not costing me anything. Its stable on Prime and I've never had any issues in day to day use with stability.

Yes I could up the voltage and search for higher multis, but the benefit of getting 4.5 or 4.6 yet wondering whether I'm taking months or years off the life of my 2600K - not worth it to me. I just want a Ron Popeil "Set it and Forget It!!!" overclock.....:thumbsup:

 

[Anomaly1964]

I was thinking that as well, but..why not just OC it anyway, since an i5-2500K can reach 4.3GHz without even thinking about breaking a sweat. Why not just OC it, use DVID to keep it at stock speed and voltage while idling, and be done with it. Idles nice and cool, but then ramps its speed up to 4.3GHz under full load.

Basically from what I read I can just simply turn multiplier to 42 or 43 to OC...

 

[Krynj]

Yes, you can. You can probably up the multiplier by a little bit without even needing to touch the voltage.

All I did with my chip was set my multiplier to 47, set my Vcore to 'Normal', and gave it a DVID of +0.080v.

 

[bryanW1995]

If you have to ask then it's probably better to just leave it at stock. that cpu will turbo up 400mhz iirc under light usage anyway, so your true difference between stock of 3.3 and oc'd to 4.3 is only 600 mhz in most scenarios.

If you want to get really crazy, underclock it to 2.5, keep it like that for a year or two, then oc it to 4.3. It'll be like getting a mid-life cpu upgrade!

 

[Hogan773]

If you have to ask then it's probably better to just leave it at stock. that cpu will turbo up 400mhz iirc under light usage anyway, so your true difference between stock of 3.3 and oc'd to 4.3 is only 600 mhz in most scenarios.

If you want to get really crazy, underclock it to 2.5, keep it like that for a year or two, then oc it to 4.3. It'll be like getting a mid-life cpu upgrade!

only 1 core can turbo 400mhz. So at full load of 4 cores, you get only 100mhz equals 3.4 (2500) or 3.5 (2600).

 

[Hogan773]

If you have to ask then it's probably better to just leave it at stock. that cpu will turbo up 400mhz iirc under light usage anyway, so your true difference between stock of 3.3 and oc'd to 4.3 is only 600 mhz in most scenarios.

If you want to get really crazy, underclock it to 2.5, keep it like that for a year or two, then oc it to 4.3. It'll be like getting a mid-life cpu upgrade!

Not sure I agree with this.....its not THAT HARD especially on Sandy Bridge. It may not have been intended, but the "if you have to ask" comment could lead one to believe that one needs special knowledge or training to be in the elite corps of overclockers......

Don't be scared - its really not hard and there are threads and people here who can help you do it.

 

[VirtualLarry]

When I upgraded my two desktop rigs, I was convinced that I was going to leave them at the stock Q9300 speed, 2.5Ghz. Not more than an hour later, I decided to overclock them, from 333 FSB to 400 FSB, to 3.0Ghz. I didn't even change the vcore, or even test them.

Was running fine, but then a day later I decided to test them using OCCT 64-bit, and the computer on the right was fine, but the computer on the left started bluescreening. So I had to bump the voltage up to 1.27v or so (think it's in my sig).

Do I notice a difference in day-to-day activity? Not really, not at all. But for DC, F@H, it does make a slight difference.

So, if you are doing DC, or video encoding, or doing things that are otherwise heavily processor-intensive, OR you just want forum bragging rights (the sole reason I overclocked my Q6600 to 3.6), then overclock. Otherwise, you would do just as well at stock. At least throw an SSD in there, before you think about overclocking, if you don't do anything CPU-intensive.

 

[Maximilian]

Ok, I have the i5-2500k running at stock speed, which is 3.3 Ghz...

Let's say I OC it to 4.3, WHERE will I notice increases that my EYE can see visually, not a benchmark score?

Will windows load faster? No

Will web pages load faster? No

Will games play better? Probably not no

I need to know the real advantages of OCing, not just the "bragging rights" part...

Thanks!

I would overclock if using something crazy like quad xfire/sli or if my CPU is getting older, like the Q6600 is now, a Q6600 at stock can be limiting but overclocked it is still a very capable gaming CPU. Either that or if you are doing something that specifically needs a lot of CPU power and max's it out at stock.

 

[Rifter]

when i overclocked my 930 to 4.2Ghz the biggest differnece i noticed was windows load time(have SSD, this probably would not be the case with spindle) and gameplay minimums went up by a large margin as well.

Not to mention my encoding times went down by close to 30% literally saving me hundreds of hours of time encoding my DVD/Blu-ray collection.

If i was you i would overclock for sure, especially since you have a K series why on earth would you pay a premium for a unlocked chip and not use it?

 

[Concillian]

Let's say I OC it to 4.3, WHERE will I notice increases that my EYE can see visually, not a benchmark score?

Will windows load faster?

Marginally. probably not noticeable

Will web pages load faster?

not different enough to notice

Will games play better?

Only a select few will offer noticeable gains. The vast majority of games are not limited to a FPS level that is low enough you will notice the difference between 3.3 and 4.3 GHz unless you run a benchmark.

I did a fairbit of FRAPSing of First Person Shooter games and looking at them myself with various underclocks on GPU and CPU a few years back. I concluded that I could start noticing low FPS around 35ish FPS. It would start being noticeable enough to detract from gameplay around 30 FPS.

The other thing was that at the settings I used to play games, 90+% of the time, underclocking the CPU did not affect the minimums where I noticed a FPS drop. It would mostly affect maximums and places where I wouldn't notice anything.

Now this was a couple years ago, but still, people are overly concerned with CPU "bottlenecks" when the CPU is "limiting" performance to minimum frame rates of 60, 70, or even higher FPS. I fully recommend everyone underclock their current CPU until they actually start noticing FPS changing (not the number in a benchmark, but noticing when playing). Then FRAPS that situation at different CPU speeds and look at exactly the FPS at that spot. See for yourself where YOU notice things and tailor your decisions around that.

If you play one of the games where it makes a big difference, you want to know that so you can take advantage. One of the nice things about the SB is there's a decent amount of headroom on stock voltage, so you can overclock with literally zero increase in idle power consumption and only use the extra power when you need it. You may not get 4.3 at stock volts, but 3.8-4 should be quite possible, and if you're at stock volts there is zero downside to the OC.

 

[Loosley]

Ok, I have the i5-2500k running at stock speed, which is 3.3 Ghz...

Let's say I OC it to 4.3, WHERE will I notice increases that my EYE can see visually, not a benchmark score?

Will windows load faster?

Will web pages load faster?

Will games play better?

I need to know the real advantages of OCing, not just the "bragging rights" part...

Thanks!

I upgraded from a Core i5 760 to a Core i5 2500K (both not overclocked), which is perhaps comparable in normalized terms to your OC scenario, and here is what I noticed:
- Win7-64 loads a bit faster
- Web pages do not load any faster
- Have not done any testing on games or any performance applications yet

So far, in day-to-day computing tasks, I haven't noticed a difference, which makes sense I guess. I'm sure, as will be confirmed by various benchmarks and review sites out there, that CPU intensive tasks will be faster.

 

[tweakboy]

IMO all your question, you will not see a difference imo.

If you want a faster computer at this point then you buy a SSD , now you have no bottleneck... gl and gb