No longer motivated to OC

[jihe]

i've overclocked nearly every system that i've ever had. It's kind of like a long-term addiction to me. If it can be overclocked, I will. (With the exception of laptops, they already are at their thermal maximums usually.)

But I've contemplated getting some AMD hex-cores, and just leaveing them at stock, and allowing their generous turbo boost to take care of the overclocking for me.

I will definitely overclock old laptops Those high freq Dothans still fetch some money.

 

[ShawnD1]

Welcome, to the world of budget overclocking. Overclocking really lost its heart when you can just throw large amount of money at your PC. Go back to the old days when the point is to try to squeeze as much out of a cheap celeron as possible.

That still is the point of overclocking. Get the cheapest model of what you want then overclock it as high as it will go. Instead of getting the $300 Phenom 1090, get the $200 Phenom 1055 and overclock it. A Phenom 925 can be overclocked to match the speed of a Phenom 965; this would save $50.

 

[cbn]

Just wondering,

How often do you guys perform stability checks on your overclocked machines? At regular timed intervals?

 

[taltamir]

i would say that depends on the chip.

well, I did say "likely" not "always" .

If I'm not mistaken, Tom's Hardware regularly pits performance against power consumption when overclocking a few select CPUs with and without a power increase. I don't know why they persist with it but it always seems that the highest clock you can attain without increasing the voltage is where the highest efficiency is.

But neither do they undervolt their CPUs unfortunately.

interesting, this could mean I was wrong in my generalization (while I didn't say always, I did say most likely. It is possible that the general trend is for most processors to be more efficient if you OC without voltage increase. I will try to find the article)

 

[ShawnD1]

Just wondering,

How often do you guys perform stability checks on your overclocked machines? At regular timed intervals?

1 - if any application freezes or crashes
2 - if I notice the temperature is higher than usual (dust accumulating)

If I'm not mistaken, Tom's Hardware regularly pits performance against power consumption when overclocking a few select CPUs with and without a power increase

IIRC, power consumption is linear with speed at the same voltage but exponential when using minimum voltage.
The basic idea is that each tick of the click takes a certain amount of current. Setting the clock higher at a fixed voltage will cause linear power increase. When using minimum voltage, the voltage needs to be increased every time the frequency is increased. You'll end up with something like 10% increased voltage to get 10% increased frequency, so the power consumption starts to look quadratic (1.1)^2 = 21% higher power consumption for 10% increase of speed.

Intuitively we all know that's true to some degree. My Phenom X6 1055 requires an extra 100W of power (according to the UPS) in order to be overclocked by 30%. With a perfect quadratic relationship, 30% overclock would theoretically mean 69% more power consumed. This CPU is rated for 125W and 69% of that would be approximately 86W extra. So basically it's worse than quadratic. Power consumption goes waaaaay up as you overclock.

Xbit did an article about this and their results were similar to what I've said but I don't like their methodology. Instead of going for minimum voltage at each frequency, they used a constant voltage for most of the data points, which showed a nice linear power increase, but they only increased voltage for the last data point and it shows a huge increase in power consumption.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/power-consumption-overclocking_3.html#sect0

 

[BD231]

Just wondering,

How often do you guys perform stability checks on your overclocked machines? At regular timed intervals?

Yes. I usually perform mine after the computer has been shut down for later use.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Well after saying I wasn't motivated this thread actually motivated me to oc my CPU and ram. set my i7 930 to a easy 3.4 ghz and the ram at 1300 MHz. Should be nice stable oc. I started up 20 runs of intel burn test/high settings /8 threads /20 passes and also started prime95 at the same time. Just gonna let em both run overnight and if it's still kickin in the morning I'm calling it good.

Is that an okay stability test running both at the same time overnight?

 

[ShawnD1]

Well after saying I wasn't motivated this thread actually motivated me to oc my CPU and ram. set my i7 930 to a easy 3.4 ghz and the ram at 1300 MHz. Should be nice stable oc. I started up 20 runs of intel burn test/high settings /8 threads /20 passes and also started prime95 at the same time. Just gonna let em both run overnight and if it's still kickin in the morning I'm calling it good.

Is that an okay stability test running both at the same time overnight?

Running both at the same time makes them less effective because you'll start getting a bunch of cache misses. I posted a video on youtube showing this effect. While running Prime95, starting a session of Linpack causes power consumption to drop dramatically; it's nowhere near as stressful as just running Prime95.

Overall I think it's easiest to keep overclocking to just the CPU, do not overclock anything resembling HT, do not overclock memory, do not overclock pci express, etc. Prime95's large FFT should be enough to catch most issues.

 

[Zap]

Welcome, to the world of budget overclocking. Overclocking really lost its heart when you can just throw large amount of money at your PC. Go back to the old days when the point is to try to squeeze as much out of a cheap celeron as possible. I assure you you will gain more satisfaction out of overclocking a $40 E3300 combo with a piece-of-crap motherboard to 4Ghz, or unlocking 2 extra cores and 6mb L3 cache of your 5000+, than you will ever have from an expensive 1366 setup.

/thread

How often do you guys perform stability checks on your overclocked machines? At regular timed intervals?

Never. If it is stable, it is stable. If it ever gets unstable, whoops, time to dust out the fans and heatsinks. Er, nowadays it is dusting out my fan filters that came with my Lian Li case. Had that happen recently, system locked twice in a row playing BFBC2. Popped the front off my case as my system was rebooting, and peeled off the dust from the filter like it was a dryer lint catcher. Voila! Fixed.

 

[DOOA]

I have a similar rig to the OP, with 1K PC Power & Cooling for power and 5970 ATI.

Fast enough hardware did not stop me from overclocking. It was Windows 7 that has taken my zeal to OC. It just takes too dam long to get exactly right. I have had no luck with backup / restore or even Ghost getting a true restore. Or perhaps Win 7 reconfigures itself when I restore. In any event, with XP I would hit the OC limit and trash the OS without a care. With Win 7 Pro 64 bit I am much more cautious and that takes the fun out of it.

 

[CurseTheSky]

I overclocked all of my previous systems, but I haven't done anything with my i7 / 1156 board, despite buying "enthusiast" parts. It handles absolutely everything I care to throw at it, and if it still can't handle max settings in some game, it's probably the graphics card that's holding it back anyway.

I actually found overclocking far more fun before the cheap free overclocks that came with Core 2 Duo. On my Athlon X2 4200+ (2.2 GHz stock), I was ecstatic to hit 2.7 GHz stable when most were capping around high 2.5 GHz / low 2.6 GHz. When I got my E6600 (2.4 GHz stock) to 3.2 GHz I hardly cared, primarily because I literally changed a few settings, dealt with a few BSODs, tweaked a few more things, and called it a day. It was just that easy. The Althon, in comparison, took weeks of tweaking settings and playing with dividers.

I suppose part of the "problem" these days is the different number of cores between a cheap part (~$70, dual core) and a more expensive part (~$250, quad core). With the exception of unlocking a Phenom II X2 / X3 to an X4, the days of simply overclocking a cheap part to or past it's $1000 cousin's capabilities are pretty much gone. Athlon 64 3200+'s running at FX-55 speeds were all the rage for a while.

 

[The Sauce]

As far as i am concerned, there is no point in building your own system if you don't plan to overclock. You could just order a customized system to spec for less money than building it yourself. The entire point for me is to find those sweet, cheap overclocking components and build a screaming fast system for half the price of buying it. Otherwise I would just buy one pre-built and save myself the hastle.

 

[Zstream]

i7 860 here, no need to overclock.

 

[taltamir]

As far as i am concerned, there is no point in building your own system if you don't plan to overclock. You could just order a customized system to spec for less money than building it yourself

really now? I can go to dell, HP, apple, etc and choose a system with the same specs as my own for less money then building it myself?
Because I completely disagree with that statement.

 

[ShawnD1]

As far as i am concerned, there is no point in building your own system if you don't plan to overclock.

Main reason to build your own is because OEM computers are piles of shit.

Let's look at a quick comparison between the computer I just built for my dad vs the HP computer he was using before this. Both are budget computers.
-OEM computer only has 2 ram slots; current one has 4
-OEM case has 2 hard drive slots; the current case has 7
-OEM computers come with the slowest hard drives imaginable; current computer has a Caviar Black hard drive
-OEM computer has 1 PCI express slot; current computer has 3
-OEM computer has a 180W PSU; current computer supports 380W continuous and is 80+ certified

I'm pretty sure OEM computers are also a major factor in why so many people absolutely hate Microsoft Windows. For all of the computers I've had since I was very young, the OEM ones had endless problems while the custom made ones seemed to work perfectly ok. My Intel 80386 system was custom built by nerds at a computer store and it worked great; it ran Windows 3.1 without any crashing. Next computer was an Intel Pentium that was built by a different group of nerds; it ran Windows 95 and I swear to god it never crashed. Not even once, and I played the hell out of Command & Conquer and Duke3D on that thing. Next computer was an OEM Intel Celeron made by eMachines running Windows 98. That pile of fuck crashed an average of 2-3 times per day. I was actually keeping a log of why it was crashing and the most common one was "black screen of death" which I later learned is what happens when the power supply is too weak for the system. A lot of people would blame Microsoft for that bullshit, but the crashing was entirely the fault of eMachines. Next 3 computers were AMD systems built by some other nerds, and they were all good systems. Later, my dad got an HP because it looked like a really good price, but this damn thing has been a cause of problems since day 1. After two years it started crashing, and it was failing Prime95 but passing Memtest. What's wrong with this thing? Who knows. Into the garbage it went and we replaced it with a custom computer that so far works good.

really now? I can go to dell, HP, apple, etc and choose a system with the same specs as my own for less money then building it myself?

It cost less, but you get a lot less. Run the OCCT PSU test on an HP computer and watch the screen go black.

 

[AlucardX]

I still OC to get that "free" boost in performance, but I don't tweak every little thing as much as i used to. i just don't feel like taking the time for all the reboots and stress tests, i go for a quick OC and that's pretty much it.

 

[dpodblood]

That still is the point of overclocking. Get the cheapest model of what you want then overclock it as high as it will go. Instead of getting the $300 Phenom 1090, get the $200 Phenom 1055 and overclock it. A Phenom 925 can be overclocked to match the speed of a Phenom 965; this would save $50.

The only problem with this strategy is that you end up paying for a $70 cooler which defeats the cost savings of the cheaper CPU.

 

[Termie]

I oc'd my e6600 to 3.0 and my e8400 to 3.6. But now that I have my comp hooked up to a Kill-a-Watt, I'm just not as motiviated to oc. I'm far too aware of the power I'm using.

The i7-860 has an incredibly low idle power draw if you maintain all power saving features, which don't work well when changing voltages, so I will only do stock voltage overclocks (which are pretty darn limited on lynnfield). Also, with the turbo mode, I can zip through single or double-threaded work faster than my oc'd e8400, so I'm happy with that.

 

[taltamir]

It cost less, but you get a lot less. Run the OCCT PSU test on an HP computer and watch the screen go black.

well, then it is not speced the same if I am getting a lot less.
I also disagree it costs less... unless its clearance of some ancient parts.

I just tried to make a machine somewhat similar to mine... 4GB RAM, i7 CPU, nice midrange GPU....

I couldn't, the only models they will let you order with an i7 are the XPS, comes with min 8GB of ram, and all crap GPUs

PROCESSORS Intel® Core™ i7-860 processor(8MB Cache, 2.80GHz) edit
OPERATING SYSTEM Genuine Windows® 7 Home Premium, 64Bit, English edit
MEMORY 8GB Dual Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1333MHz - 4 DIMMs edit
MONITOR 24.0" Dell ST2410 Full HD Monitor with VGA cable edit
VIDEO CARD ATI Radeon HD 5670 1GB GDDR5 edit
HARD DRIVE 1TB - 7200RPM, SATA 3.0Gb/s, 16MB Cache edit
OPTICAL DRIVE 16X DVD+/-RW Drive edit
SPEAKERS No speakers (Speakers are required to hear audio from your system) edit
KEYBOARD Dell Studio Consumer Multimedia Keyboard edit
MOUSE Dell Studio Optical Mouse

$1,287.99

Lets say I was brain dead retarded and wanted to build such a system myself.

PROCESSORS Intel® Core™ i7-860 processor(8MB Cache, 2.80GHz)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-214-_-Product
290$
OPERATING SYSTEM Genuine Windows® 7 Home Premium, 64Bit, English
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-754-_-Product
100$
MEMORY 8GB Dual Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1333MHz - 4 DIMMs
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820231253
2x82$
MONITOR 24.0" Dell ST2410 Full HD Monitor with VGA cable
ugh, VGA? disgusting... anyways, this exact model not available on newegg... but 300$ should more then cover a quality 24 inch monitor.
VIDEO CARD ATI Radeon HD 5670 1GB GDDR5
What POS, but they don't have any good cards available...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-467-_-Product
100$
HARD DRIVE 1TB - 7200RPM, SATA 3.0Gb/s, 16MB Cache
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...eId=1&name=1TB
70$
OPTICAL DRIVE 16X DVD+/-RW Drive
25$
KEYBOARD Dell Studio Consumer Multimedia Keyboard edit
MOUSE Dell Studio Optical Mouse
Dell keyboard and mouse a crap, 20$ for BOTH.
Oh, and a case for another 30$
mobo for 100, PSU for 40.

grand total: 1240$
While only a little cheaper:
1. They force you to buy unnecessary stuff that you wouldn't otherwise. For example, you probably wouldn't get 8GB of ram right now.
2. They sell you CRAP components, the components I listed are much higher quality, all of them.

all that being said... the price, overall, was indeed cheaper. Not by a whole lot, but it was.
And I think I over estimated the cost of the monitor by about 100$

EDIT: Number 1 rated 24 inch LCD on newegg is 220$ shipped http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...6049&cm_re=24_inch_lcd-_-24-236-049-_-Product

 

[Idontcare]

The only problem with this strategy is that you end up paying for a $70 cooler which defeats the cost savings of the cheaper CPU.

Ain't it the truth!

 

[FishAk]

How do you get 4 sticks of RAM to run tri channel? Buying an OEM sucks- whether you OC or not.

 

[taltamir]

How do you get 4 sticks of RAM to run tri channel? Buying an OEM sucks- whether you OC or not.

you don't, its in dual channel.

 

[Axon]

I agree with what a few of the guys have said so far: Overclocking my i7 920 is fun, but kind of unecessary. I have a lot more fun messing with my Phenom X2 555 (unlocking it, ocing it, etc).

 

[ShawnD1]

The only problem with this strategy is that you end up paying for a $70 cooler which defeats the cost savings of the cheaper CPU.

Phenom II X2 550 will overclock to 3.8 with the stock cooler (23% overclock)
Phenom II X6 1055 will overclock to 3.8 with the stock cooler (36% overclock)
E6600 will overclock to 3.1 on the stock cooler (29% overclock)
Phenom X4 9600 will overclock to 2.6 with the stock cooler (13% overclock)

These are all processors I own and they all work great.

 

[kalrith]

My old goal was to overclock as much as possible. My new goal is to do so at stock voltage. I can hit 3.6 GHz with my Q6600 if I up the voltage, but the increase in power usage and heat (and possible decrease in life) isn't worth it to me. However, I can't imagine letting my processor sit at its stock 2.4 GHz when it'll easily hit 3.22 GHz at stock voltage.

Same with my 4870. It runs at 820/1050 instead of the stock 750/900 with no increase in voltage, and no heat/power issues either.

To me overclocking at stock voltage is like free performance or even free money. To get the performance of my Q6600 at 3.22 GHz, I would've had to spend a whole lot more money.

I also really enjoy overclocking when I first get a system. Once I get it set to where I want it, I always think I'll go back and tweak it some more, but I never do. However, 2 1/2 years after I set my Q6600 to 3.22 GHz, I haven't had a hiccup and haven't had to tweak it once.

I even overclocked my HTPC. I have an AMD BE-2300. It's overclocked to about 2.4 GHz (from 1.9 GHz stock). That's also at stock voltage. The kicker is that I have the voltage drop to .8v and the speed drop to 1 GHz when it goes to idle, and it draws less than 50W from the wall. So, I get extra performance when I need it and much lower power usage ~80% of the time.