To OC or not to OC

[Keleka]

After reading this article at Cheap Thrills: Core 2 Duo E6400 Overclocked to 3.33 GHz

For the purposes of my PC use i'm unsure if the extra wear and tear on the processor will be worth a couple FPS in fact the card i ordered will kick the Xt1900 around pretty nicely so the test result numbers are lower then my system which i'm building tomorrow will be by far.

There were some good gains in Audio and Video processing but i'm a gamer and surfer pretty much to that extent. Now i'm not saying OCing is NOT an option. I'm saying its more of a *look and see how high i got it clocked stablily* vs a benifit to the normal user wouldn't you say? Some guys build race car engines and some guys OC to the point of meltdown just because but my thoughts are on gains and impact for my particular use. The only real gain from 2.16 to 3+ is temperature game wise if i read correctly.

So i'm hear to listen to OCer opinions. I'm mainly talking to gamers in this discussion. I can't wait to build my new rig tomorrow sometime. *whistles for the UPS truck. Sell me on OCing ;P

 

[buzzsaw13]

The lifespan lost from overclocking shouldn't be a problem since you'd be replacing the chip way before it ever decides to die.

 

[n7]

We don't know what hardware you have, so its unknown whether you can even OC or not.

But assuming you got decent components, the better question is why not OC?

If you set vcore to a nice low amount, it's possible to overclock & cause less wear & tear to the CPU while OCed IMHO.

And since most C2Ds will reach 3 GHz @ the very low 1.25-1.3V, again i say, what good reason do you have for not wanting that free performance boost?

 

[Agentbolt]

There's very little reason not to OC if you components allow it. You WILL see higher framerates in games with an Overclock. Even a moderately high Vcore adjustment (bumping it up to say, 1.55 volts for a Core 2 Duo) will lower your CPU's lifespan by maybe half. That's still 5 years, minimum, assuming you have an even vaguely acceptable cooling solution. What's your computer going to be worth in 5 years? 5 years ago Radeon 7500's were pretty hot stuff

It's basically getting something for nothing when you OC. Also, for some people simply tweaking, adjusting, and trying to squeeze every bit of performance they can out of a component is enjoyable in itself.

 

[Roguestar]

Overclocking = free performance.

If that interests you more than keeping the same computer for ten years, then it's for you.

 

[Rottie]

will warranty cover cpu if it died by overclocked?

 

[Roguestar]

No.

 

[Cogman]

Bingo, That is the one and only good reason not to OC. If you screw up and fry your CPU, its tough luck and you just lost $200. However, if you just do a FSB OC on default voltage, chances of doing real damage are fairly low, its when you start messing with the vcore that you begin to tread on dangerous waters.

 

[Rio Rebel]

I think 3 categories with this issue: No overclock, safe overclock, and extreme overclock. There are obvious reasons not to overclock, most significantly the warranty. the other good reason not to overclock is that no matter how stable your overclock might be, it still makes you question whether it's responsible whenever you have to troubleshoot an issue.

The other end of the spectrum is the extreme overclock. It is riskier, more effort, and more costly. The only reason to get into extreme overclocking is if you just enjoy it and like the challenge of pushing the chip to its maximum potential. Most of us, even as enthusiasts, decide that extreme overclocking is not justified from a cost/benefit perspective. The fact that you even asked your original question means you probably aren't choosing this category.

The sweet spot here, and the area I have stayed in for years, is the "safe" overclock. I don't want to buy watercooling, $60+ aftermarket coolers, or ultra expensive memory. But if I can increase performance to a noticable degree without any additional expense or significant risk, why not? This is where most of us want to be.

I usually take a more conservative approach than most here, not because of the risk but because I don't have time to do a lot of troubleshooting and tweaking. I checked the forums and researched the board and memory, and then bought an E6300 which runs at 3.0ghz. That is a HUGE overclock compared to previous chips. I can absolutely tell a signifcant and noticable difference in system performance. I do this without buying expensive cooling and without even increasing any voltage settings at all, so my risk is very minimal. Admittedly, I am using an aftermarket heatsing/fan, but I was able to hit this with stock HSF, I just wanted to cool it more and see how far it would go.

As Nike, says, Just Do It. Decide how much you want to get "into it", but I highly recommend at least a safe and conservative overclock. It's "free" performance

 

[Xerin7]

People like to use the term "free performance", but that isn't usually the case. To get that "free performance", you typically end up paying more $$$ for higher quality RAM, cpu fan, and sometimes a better case. It isn't really free, unless you are doing a very minor OC with standard components and cheap RAM.

Another hidden cost of OCing is in noise level and power consumption, since typically the higher you OC the noisier and more power hungry your rig is likely to be.

 

[Rio Rebel]

Originally posted by: Xerin7
People like to use the term "free performance", but that isn't usually the case. To get that "free performance", you typically end up paying more $$$ for higher quality RAM, cpu fan, and sometimes a better case. It isn't really free, unless you are doing a very minor OC with standard components and cheap RAM.

Normally this is a good point, but it doesn't apply as well to Core2Duo chips. The overclock you can get with stock hsf and standard value ram is not "minor" at all.

Even if you buy cheaper memory that is only rated at 667mhz, you are still in the running for a decent overclock. You can likely get that memory to 350/700 without trying hard, and the stock HSF can do that with ease. So you could take an E6300 from 1.86 ghz to 2.45 with no added cost and minimal effort.

I agree wholeheartedly with your principle - it's why I've done minimal overclocking since the original Celerons. But this is clearly a different case.

 

[Xerin7]

Rio, so would you recommend paying for 800mhz memory but going stock on the HSF to achieve the best price/performance?

 

[happy medium]

I'd overclock on STOCK voltage as high as you can go. Its much safer and you get more than your money 's worth. Your video card is bottlenecking your cpu any way,so why risk higher voltage. Save that for when you need it.

 

[Rio Rebel]

Originally posted by: Xerin7
Rio, so would you recommend paying for 800mhz memory but going stock on the HSF to achieve the best price/performance?

I would recommend using faster memory, but within reason. I certainly wouldn't get slow memory just to save 10 or 15 bucks, but at the same time I wouldn't pay $150-200 a gig, either.

If you are trying to get the most for your money, you can either stick with stock HSF or buy a value priced cooler, like the CoolerMaster or the Scythe Ninja. Those are half the price of a Tuniq Tower, but the performance is not THAT far off.

Bottom line to me: I'm willing to pay another 50 bucks or so to go from 1.8 to 3.0ghz. But I'm not willing to pay another 200 bucks to go from 3.0 to 3.4. It's all a matter of cost/benefit.

 

[Xerin7]

Makes sense to me

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Keleka
After reading this article at Cheap Thrills: Core 2 Duo E6400 Overclocked to 3.33 GHz

For the purposes of my PC use i'm unsure if the extra wear and tear on the processor will be worth a couple FPS in fact the card i ordered will kick the Xt1900 around pretty nicely so the test result numbers are lower then my system which i'm building tomorrow will be by far.

This is an example of too little information being harmful. The reason you didn't see any benefits in gaming FPS in that article has absolutely nothing to do with the overclocking. An E6400 @2.5 Ghz is already faster than an X1900XT; it makes no difference how much faster you run the cpu, because the video card can't keep up. If that review had used an 8800GTX, you would have seen the FPS continue to rise, the higher the cpu went, even with "video card limited games", like most first person shooters. That applies even more so to cpu limited games, like Oblivion and flight simulators.

A guy on the flight simulator forum that I belong to bought an E6600 and an 8800 GTX, and was trying to add performance in MS's Flight Simulator X. He started by overclocking his 8800 GTX, and got little or no FPS improvement. He then decided to try overclocking his E6600. His framerates went up by roughly 50%, and he only OC'd from 2.4 Ghz to 3.0 Ghz. So, if you've bought an 8800 GTS, you'll see higher FPS up to around 2.7-2.8 Ghz; if you've bought an 8800 GTX, you'll see higher FPS well past 3.2 Ghz, since it's a faster card.