Quick Question - Why Overclock?

[teambarnes]

Ok, so my eye was caught by a headline over at Tom's Hardware about the ability to overclock the new AMD Phenom quad-core, and I was stunned. What the~! What use could a person possibly have to overclock what is arguably the fastest processor in circulation?

Is there some program I am unaware of that can eat processor power for breakfast? I mean seriously, why overclock at all? Is it a prestige thing, or maybe people just like to tinker with their toys? It is the most common topic on these boards, to overclock or not, how much, what's best, you hear it all the time, but I've never seen a single reason WHY! (Except for those trying to perform with older components, I guess...)

So, basically, what's up with overclocking, and should I be doing it???

 

[MarcVenice]

Overclocking phenom STINKS, they have very little overclocking headroom as far as I know. But, why overclock? Well, because you can ? Because it's fun, because it makes your CPU hella fast ? And, because it can save you money. You can buy a 80$ cpu, like a e2160, at 1.8ghz, and overclock it to 3.0ghz, and will be equally fast as a CPU that costs TWICE the money. That's 80$ saved, assuming you use the stock cooler. Sometimes you'll need a new cooler, like a cheap arctic freezer 7 pro, for 25$, and you have still saved 55$. And, well, if you encode video's, rip dvd's, rar a lot and stuff, and you know how to overclock a e8400, stock at 3.0ghz, to 4.0ghz, speeding things up 33%, it's worth it not ? And, no real harm is done, if you keep your CPU at beneath a certain temperature, and don't push to high of a voltage, so why not? It's free performance in the end.

 

[nerp]

A good example is how I spent $200 for an Opteron 148 in 2003/4 and OC'd it to match a FX-59, which was selling for $800 at the time. Same clock speed, cache size and same core design. The only difference was a locked multipler, some bios settings and $600 of money I was able to spend on other things instead of hardware. For being nearly effortless, it was worth it to me.

That might be an extreme example and the difference isn't going to be so great for someone buying a more recent chip, but it's still something to consider. But the whole Opteron craze started because of their great overclockability and the ability to make a $200 chip perform as well as the top-of-the-line $800 to $1000 models.

 

[NamelessMC]

I find that the majority of people who argue the validity of over-clocking are either a fan on the losing side of a technology brand that can't over-clock or are afraid of risk.

The truth is, the risk:reward factor for over-clocking nowadays is far far outweighed. A $75 Pentium Dual-core can be over-clocked 100% and match the performance of a $950 Core 2 Extreme processor at stock speeds, with at most, a $20-30 cooler to keep it safe. And that's a 24/7 stable over-clock that could likely last the better side of 3-4 years.

There's some people with over-clocked first generation Conroe Core 2 Duo's that have yet to have any stability problems.

The truth is, every generation is going to have its over-clocking gems. If you're a fan of a processor or graphics brand that doesn't have easily over-clockable chips, the most I can tell you is to just suck it up and let it go.

The truth is, a lot of the pride AMD fans have is because of over-clocking. Back in the Socket A days, an Athlon MP from a laptop could be used in a desktop, and because of its much cooler temperatures, could be over-clocked to stellar speeds. Don't even make me bring up the Athlon 64 days or even the Athlon 64 x2 versus Pentium D days. Intel took quite a beating in the enthusiast market.

I over-clock because there's performance to be had, and I can quite tangibly notice the performance difference.

 

[MarcVenice]

Don't start about being a fan of the losing side of the technology brand. You and I might be used to overclocking, 99% of the PC users has actually never heard about it. So I can imagine people asking why you would do it. I mean, there ARE people who only use their PC to email, websurf and write some stuff in Word you know? For them, a single core duron or celeron processor is plenty fast.

 

[sutahz]

Ok just went to tomshardware and found this phenom article
http://www.tomshardware.com/20...ck_edition/page35.html
Conclusion - AMD's Phenom 9600 Can't Beat Intel's Q6600

I didnt read it, didnt even skim it. On the first and last page things are in bold, and those things basically say how AMD is being retarded.

Did you read the article at toms or even part of it?
"What use could a person possibly have to overclock what is arguably the fastest processor in circulation?"??????????????????? Its not the most arguably fastest processor. I think I even read its not that great compared to its predecessor.

Why overclock? Why add a low resistance air filter to your car for 5 free HP? Because you can.

 

[NamelessMC]

Don't take what I say out of context. That just indicates that you are either skewing what's said or you can't read. Your choice really.

I said fans of a losing side of technology OR people who are afraid of risk. And I wasn't even saying that to indicate there are great risks to over-clocking, I was merely stating that they might have these urban legend incidents that make them weary of over-clocking. "My cousin's nephew's friend across the street's sister's boyfriend, overclocked his computer and blew it up, so I don't wanna try that." I hear it all the time. Even friends of mine I build PC's for, as I'm sitting there showing them how easy it is and how it doesn't hurt hardware, are like, "nooooo no.... i dont wanna blow it up".

 

[MarcVenice]

That's healthy scepticism if you ask me. In nowadays world, NOTHING comes for free, not even free performance, for very little risk. I'm no pessimist by any means, but I did some extensive reading and research before I started overclocking, on my own purchased PC, that didn't come cheap. So I completely understand the arguments against it. I mean, a 200mhz difference isn't going to really help, but we're talking 50-100% overclocks, I would be weary of that too when someone told me about it, not knowing tons of people on these forums do it, and are happily running those rigs, stable and all that, 24/7, for longer periods of time.

And how did I take what you said out of context, you started about people beings fan about things, and I didn't want this to turn into a fanboy thread. He merely named AMD because he saw that on a website, and clearly knows nothing about overclocking, or whatever CPU is the best right now. But if I did, I'm sorry, but let's at least not go there.

 

[NamelessMC]

I made no condescending remarks about people being afraid of risk. I merely said, "Fans of losing technology or people afraid of risk". It's your fault for digging too deeply into it. I'm done arguing with you, getting into hissy fits with children on the internet doesn't meet my fancy.

 

[MarcVenice]

Fans of losing technology, that's the condescending remark, and yes I read into that as a snide remark making this thread about being an intel or amd fanboy. And I said I'm sorry if I did so, wrongly. Jeez, look whose the kid throwing a hissy fit. Remarkable really.

 

[imported_wired247]

For what it's worth, I overclocked my e8400 only so that it would be performing on par with my RAM.

Obviously not prestige, as I'm using the ghetto stock cooler, and you can see I'm not pushing my system to the limits.

It is fun... and somewhat intellectually challenging. Not exactly like doing a PhD, but it can take some thought which is always good.

 

[JackMDS]

Cool it please, let?s discuss the issues and Not start with unnecessary personal attacks.

1. No one is obliging by law to OC.

2. No one would be prosecuted for Not OC.

Personal preferences are Not a reason to put people down.

I could Not afford to spend more the $150.
The combo of P35-E after rebate with E2180 was within my means.

The E2180 runs very nice on 3.2GHz.

So if someone is richer than I am and can spend $300 on a CPU why No, but is very depressing if it shoved in my face with a vengeance.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: teambarnes


Is there some program I am unaware of that can eat processor power for breakfast? .)

Maya , hungry, want more cpu, you got 200 quad core servers ? , not enough me still want more !


And thats no exageration.
I can do my work on a dual or quad core cpu, but to render out a scene I have to send it off to the render farms where there are 200+ quad core servers, billed at over .50/minute, for every minute those servers have to work. Often runs 5-700.00 a render
So if I can cut cost by buying current hardware and cpu and then overclock the hell out of it, you bet I am going to do it !

so instead I run 8 quad cores overclocked just for rendering. cuts my cost almost in half.

So, basically, what's up with overclocking, and should I be doing it???[/quote]

Its all about getting more performance for less money.

 

[JackMDS]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

So, basically, what's up with overclocking, and should I be doing it???

Its all about getting more performance for less money.

:thumbsup:

 

[angry hampster]

Why buy a camaro then put a supercharger on it? Because you can, and you want to go faster. ...except a supercharger for a camaro will cost you 3 grand. Overclocking is free until you need cooling.

 

[lxskllr]

Only 1 person touched on this, but in addition to the added performance, I also like fooling with the hardware. I like having a computer just to have a computer. Tweaking settings, and generally fiddling around is fun for me. I'd overclock even if the performance gains were only theoretical. I enjoy the overclocking process.

 

[teambarnes]

Thank you for the myriad answers to my question!I should say I mentioned AMD only becuz of the headline, and it was silly of me to say "arguably" as that is inviting argument, no? I only wanted to know some of the reasons to over-clock, and they are good reasons, price difference being my favorite... well maybe next to the fun of hands-on craftsmanship of a finely tuned engine. Excellent reasons, all of them.

I am an AMD fan, but mostly becuz my first computer was a packard bell with a pentium I 233. It was sad, the P II's had already come out and i knew absolutley nothing about computers, but tried to decipher the best deal thru sunday ads alone, lol (before internets for me...) SO ever after I have avidly read of the epic battles between upstart AMD and mammoth INTEL, and my second computer (I discovered computers, the internet, love, money, all that) was an AMD K7. Never looked back. In fact, no argument intended, with my newest PC, I switched to not only AMD but ATI as well! The Radeon 3850/70 sounded so good, and reasonably priced, that went to an all AMD build. I'm lovin' it, but really, this dual core - nothing I do challenges it, WOW Medeival Total War, DVD burning, moviest, etc... (so why do I still want a Phenom and a 3870x2????)

 

[RebateMonger]

I haven't overclocked anything in years. The last "good" overclock I did was on a couple of Celeron 300's, running at 450MHz.

In general, there's a REASON why chips are rated for a certain speed. The manufacturer has already tested them and determined that they are only reliable up to that speed. If the manufacturer thought they'd run faster reliably, then they would have been stamped with a pricier label and sold them for more money.

Yes, there are exceptions. The first series of chips from a new-higher-speed processing line will often be under-rated. But, in general and for my own use, I find overclocking risky to the stability of my system and prefer to stick with the manufacturer's recommended clocking. I don't have weird reboots, I don't have corrupted registries, and I don't have to pay premium prices for "overclockable" components.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger
I haven't overclocked anything in years. The last "good" overclock I did was on a couple of Celeron 300's, running at 450MHz.

In general, there's a REASON why chips are rated for a certain speed. The manufacturer has already tested them and determined that they are only reliable up to that speed. If the manufacturer thought they'd run faster reliably, then they would have been stamped with a pricier label and sold them for more money.

No, they wouldn't. You clearly don't understand the business model of Intel.

Originally posted by: RebateMonger
Yes, there are exceptions. The first series of chips from a new-higher-speed processing line will often be under-rated. But, in general and for my own use, I find overclocking risky to the stability of my system and prefer to stick with the manufacturer's recommended clocking. I don't have weird reboots, I don't have corrupted registries, and I don't have to pay premium prices for "overclockable" components.

Suit yourself, but there are plenty of us out there with STABLE, 24/7 OCs, that run for years without BSODs or problems.

You wouldn't leave free money on the table, why would you leave free performance?

 

[bigpow]

Good old celery 300A @450..
E8400 is somewhat similar, 3G at 4G (easy) or 4.5G (with care)

I also don't think Intel bin-tested every single chip, so I'm with Larry on this.

 

[angry hampster]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

No, they wouldn't. You clearly don't understand the business model of Intel.

This would explain why the new wolfdales are stamped with 2006 on the top as well, eh? :laugh:

 

[JackMDS]

When Intel rates their CPUs, what on their mind is the Huge amount of Business and regular Home users that buy their CPUs installed in their Dells, and HPs.

The Enthusiasts are Not on their mind.

Rebate Monger is right, one have to be out of his mind to build OC computers for Business Networks, or as computers for regular consumers. Few gulches and the saving on the OC will go Down Hill, and can really harm a Business that depends on Networked computers.

Our discussion here really pertaining to Enthusiasts with their special expensive PSU, extra Fans and Case Windows that alert you visually when there is too much dust.

There is No shame in doing unique things, the shame is when one thinks that his unique things must be the common truth for the all world in any set of variables.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Actually, as a processor line matures, the yield and quality normally go up. Many of the chips from a line will perform very well. But the manufacturer must also sell lower cost chips, so a number of them are marked at a lower speed. If all were marked at the speed they could reliably achieve, the company would have mostly premium priced chips to sell, cutting itself off from a large market segment. Processors like the 939 Opterons needed to be extremely stable for their intended use in servers and workstations. AMD built in a large safety margin for stability by marketing the chips at a far lower speed than they could achieve. They were intentionally underclocked.

I overclock (since the days of the AMD DX4s), and it seems reasonable to attempt to get the most out of my investment.

 

[imported_wired247]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: RebateMonger
I haven't overclocked anything in years. The last "good" overclock I did was on a couple of Celeron 300's, running at 450MHz.

In general, there's a REASON why chips are rated for a certain speed. The manufacturer has already tested them and determined that they are only reliable up to that speed. If the manufacturer thought they'd run faster reliably, then they would have been stamped with a pricier label and sold them for more money.

No, they wouldn't. You clearly don't understand the business model of Intel.

Originally posted by: RebateMonger
Yes, there are exceptions. The first series of chips from a new-higher-speed processing line will often be under-rated. But, in general and for my own use, I find overclocking risky to the stability of my system and prefer to stick with the manufacturer's recommended clocking. I don't have weird reboots, I don't have corrupted registries, and I don't have to pay premium prices for "overclockable" components.

Suit yourself, but there are plenty of us out there with STABLE, 24/7 OCs, that run for years without BSODs or problems.

You wouldn't leave free money on the table, why would you leave free performance?

It's not necessarily free performance. That is a rediculous statement. Overclocked settings produce more heat and therefore consume more power. They require more stable voltages. That sometimes means a bigger or higher quality PSU is required. Sometimes they require faster RAM, and we all know that going faster than DDR2-800 and RAM starts getting expensive. You may save a few $$$ by buying an OEM processor, but 3rd party heatsinks/fans are not free (or cheap).

Time invested increases as well. For people who make $30-50/hr they may not want to spend the time it takes to lap a heatsink, check stability repeatedly with stress testing, or worry about things like fan controllers. You could easily spend $100s on "opportunity cost" just to get a 30% overclock.

These statements are not always true, but IMO they are true in general.

There's nothing wrong with NOT overclocking... there's nothing wrong WITH overclocking... it's a matter of personal preference and it's not appropriate for EVERY user because it's not necessarily "Free performance" being given out.

 

[heyheybooboo]

I tend to underclock and undervolt.

As I type I'm zooming along at 1004MHz and 1.125v. Got my email open, web browser, and checkin' the news by way of the HD tuner. Just updated my AVG. CPU utilization is 11-16% on an Opty 165.

It's nice to know that 2.7-2.8GHZ is there when I want it but I'm not going to overvolt and overclock 95+% of the time. Some folks are rightfully proud of the performance gains of their OCs but I'm willing to wager that in most instances it's a waste because of low cpu utilization.

There are always exceptions. F@H, CAD, video/audio re-codes, etc., but normally, I don't care if a project is run 13 minutes faster because I'm not going to sit there and watch the frames click off - lol

And if you have serious crunching to do that's why they make 2p/4p platforms and render boxes.

I'm not knocking OCers. I'm one myself, though I look forward to the days of 'single-click' clock/volt management where you can optimize settings for the tasks at hand. There are some neat utilities out there but we are just not quite there yet.

Give me a combination of CrystalCPU, CoreTemps, SpeedFan, CPUZ, Rivatuner and AMD Overdrive with complete control over the bios from within the OS and I'll be happy.

Am I asking for too much ??