Q6600@ 3.2ghz and 3.6ghz

[LOUISSSSS]

real world as in normal desktop usage, maybe encode a video or two a week, play some CS:S and COD4...anything u can really think of

my heat is on now and i want my idle and load temps to drop 5C or so i'm currently at 1.368 Bios 3.55ghz

 

[SerpentRoyal]

Nope. North of 3.0GHz, all of those are lightning fast.

 

[GundamF91]

Until applications catch on, it's not really that big of a difference. Maybe if you're encoding video with fast harddrives.

 

[SunSamurai]

Yes, there is a "real world" difference. I have no idea what "Until applications catch on" means. That makes 0 sense unless all you do is word processing and internet browsing. Gaming and video encoding will see ~10% performance boost.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: aeternitas
Yes, there is a "real world" difference. I have no idea what "Until applications catch on" means. That makes 0 sense unless all you do is word processing and internet browsing. Gaming and video encoding will see ~10% performance boost.

possibly more depending on your FSB.

Do you mean 400x8 vs 400x9?

or 400x9 vs 355x9?

400x8 vs 400x9 you'll probably see less then 10%.

The other, you'll probably see around 10%

For encoding and processing, my 3737 pulls a WU in about 4 hours 56min
On my HTPC which is moderately clocked at 3200 @ 400x8 it pulls a WU in about 5 hours 35min.

On my other Quad, which is at 356x9 it pulls it in 5 hours 50min. Close to 6 hours.



If you mean internet and web browsing, then no.

 

[betasub]

As an overclocker, you'll feel the difference in your heart :heart:

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: aeternitas
Gaming and video encoding will see ~10% performance boost.

Not when your processor is already faster than your video card, when running @ 3.2 Ghz. Video encoding is another story, though, it's almost 100% CPU-dependent.

 

[imported_Section8]

I posted this in HDs and thought it would be better here. Not to insult and not encourage flames.

While we are on the subject of overclocking, what are the real world advantages of doing it. It should be analogous to flying somewhere as opposed to driving. The advantage is that you get to spend more time with loved ones or working. Do you OCer's get to spend more time with family, work out more, go on nice vacations, hold your wife/GFs (both, oh thats another forum) hand more? Or is it mostly what I have been reading in just about every post where people talk OC. "I got 10 more fps in Crysis or I broke 10000 in 3dmark?"

Just curious.

 

[littlebitstrouds]

Originally posted by: Section8
Do you OCer's get to spend more time with family, work out more, go on nice vacations, hold your wife/GFs (both, oh thats another forum) hand more?

Well I buy a cheaper processor, and overclock it which results in:
1. More money for me to spend on loved ones.
2. My computer does work faster so I spend less time in front of the computer, and more time with the loved ones.
3. A hobby, that makes me a more well rounded person, so I have more to talk about with my loved ones.

 

[Thor86]

Originally posted by: betasub
As an overclocker, you'll feel the difference in your heart :heart:

And isn't that what ocing is all about?

 

[MarcVenice]

Sure makes me feel good knowing I bought a CPU, and overclocked it to run at speeds of cpu's that cost twice or even three times as much, without any risk and still enjoying the same performance as people that spend 3 times as much as I did.

Btw, aigo, why are you differentiating between FSB speeds? Theres almost NO gain between running 8x450 or 9x400. I'd say you're only really going to see a difference between 3.2 and 3.6ghz in CPU dependant tasks, like people mentioned above. In everyday usage it won't do you much good. Most games will also be bottlenecked by your videocard long before your 3.2ghz q6600 starts bottlenecking it.

 

[imported_Section8]

Thanks, I understand now. btw, I am an OCer myself and not a OC hater. It just seemed to me that 99% of the posts concerning OCing were for the sake of OCing. Nothing at all wrong with that. Wave your OC flag high!

 

[GundamF91]

My philosophy is to run it at the speed you need. So if 3Ghz is good enough for me for now, I'll oc to 3Ghz. And then a year from now, when my games demand more power, I'll crank it up to 3.3Ghz with more vCore. This will probably burn up the CPU faster, but I'm getting more use of it, and delaying buying the next best thing. And I'd see that I'll need to hit 3.5Ghz in 2009 if I want to keep the E4500. By then, it wouldn't matter much if I shorten the CPU life from 20yrs to 5yrs, because I wouldn't need it for that long.

But for now, as long as the power is enough for what I do (I don't encode video much), then I'm happy with a medium overclock, and not go extreme, because stability is far more important, and I dont' want to accidentally burn up and have all the data loss related to this. this is one aspect of OC that people dont' talk about. I only have this one PC, and it's my mission critical piece, so I can't afford to crank it skyhigh just to have it crash when I need to finish my paper.

If you have a test rig dedicated for OC, then go all out and it won't hurt anything other than your wallet. But then again, if you have a dedicated OC test rig, then what are you using it for other than simply OC? Wouldn't the additional cost offset any value you get from buying a slower processor rather than buying bleeding edge?

In that case, having 2 PC would end up costing more than what you really need. This in itself defeats the performance:value ratio, and the idea of getting the best bang for the buck, which is what OC was all about. Now it's more like the muscle car industry, people just cranking it up so they can say how much HP they have under the hood. It's just a claim on synthetic benchmark test, and they dont' run the computer for what they need the computer for.

 

[ahxnguyen]

Originally posted by: betasub
As an overclocker, you'll feel the difference in your heart :heart:

Well said. Thank you for saying what I think.

 

[LOUISSSSS]

haha hmmm so should i drop it back down a few notches to 3.2ghz? or just ask for a tuniq for xmas...

 

[lopri]

If your board is capable, enable power saving features like C1E/SpeedStep. Many modern boards can handle overclocking/overvolting with EIST, and that'll solve the dilemma to an extent because the CPU will automatically adjust its clockspeed as well as vCore according to the load. So for example your CPU will be @2.40GHz/1.12V when idling or dealing with light tasks, and will be @3.60GHz/1.40V under heavy load.

 

[LOUISSSSS]

hey i do have speedstep enabled i'm running at 6x right now and idling at 40 now due to my very warm (heat on now that its winter) room. and speedstep only drops the multiplier at idle, not voltage

 

[BonzaiDuck]

My current opinion, with others encouraged to diverge, follows this line of reasoning.

I was able to notice the difference between 3.0 and 3.2 -- Until I tweaked my memory timings and took care to find a sweet-spot where the memory could be reliably set at a 1T command-rate under tighter timings without going over the warranty-voltage-spec.

At that point, I had a much harder time "feeling" -- "sensing" -- "observing" subjectively -- any difference.

The synthetic benchmarks seem to incorporate CPU L2-cache into their results, and I can compare the bench results for different dividers, settings and CPU speeds.

So while I had my processor at about a 33% over-clock -- from 2.4 to 3.2 -- I've found a sweet-spot at 3.16 where the bandwidth benchies are at a max. I've casually compared these benchies with non-1:1 divider settings and higher FSBs with looser timings, and I don't think anything is gained that way.

And my VCORE is not set so high that I think I need worry too much about electron migration, while the heat problem . . . . well . . . . it just doesn't exist for me this way.

Counting my pennies for a processor upgrade from this quad, and not very worried about data or hardware disaster that happens when I least expect it.