What's the test of a 'good' overclock

[TheWrongTree]

I'd like to get some opinions of what people think makes an overclock 'successful'. As a potential, example... if I'm a gamer, then gaming performance would be my goal. Assuming the system after overclocking is now stable and running well, how do I determine if I've helped myself? Is it 3d06 scores? Is it some other measurement? Is a 'successful' overclock very noticeable in everyday useage?

I don't have much experience with overclocking (almost none, really) so I'm just wondering what the potential real world benefits are. What differences did those of you who have successfully overclocked your rigs notice?

In the interest of keeping this discussion somewhat on track, I'm very much aware that AMD's are not OC friendly and that if I wanted to OC, I should have bought an Intel rig. I'm really curious in a more general way than that, what kinds of things that people see as a successful result of their OCing efforts, not having ever tried it to any great extent myself.

 

[Tullphan]

I'm not a gamer, but i'd assume one would check their 3d06 scores before & after an overclock to see the difference (if any).
If one is going to overclock their CPU, I would think that they'd overclock their GPU as well.
If it was me, i'd get before & after scores w/the CPU & GPU overclocked.
I would think that'd be the extent of difference one would see with an overclock. If you're just web browsing & farting around on your PC, I don't think a nano-second or 2 faster would be noticeable.
But there's also bragging rights!

 

[heyheybooboo]

Tree -

Your cpu should hit 3GHz+ (cpu multi 15x) on stock volts without a 'technical' OC (increasing the AMD clock generator above 200MHz). You will need to 'tweak' your memory to keep it within stock specs and maintain system stability. I've seen some folks get 3.1GHz on stock volts with a 15.5 multi.

It is quite possible (if you are pure of heart ) that 3.3-3.4GHz will run stable.

You need 'freeware' to monitor your system while you OC. CPUz, SpeedFan, Coretemps, etc. will help you monitor overall temps and clock speeds.

You also need Orthos/Prime to test system stability.

A simple option for you is the AMD OverDrive Utility. It would involve little interaction with the system BIOS and has independent mode where it will seek your optimum OC settings.

 

[Martimus]

If you want any help on how to overclock the A64 X2, here is the guide that I used to overclock my CPU: A64 Overclock Guide

I think Tullphan has a good idea for testing overclocks. A lot of people use other benchmarks, depending on what they are interested in increasing. A WinRAR benchmark seems common to test the processor improvements, although I don't know what exactly what improvements it is testing.

 

[ahxnguyen]

That's a good question.
I don't believe in 8-hour stress tests because my application rarely needs more than 90 minutes to finish recalcualtions, using 100% CPU resources from start to finish.
We used Lavalys Everest Ultimate edition to stress test 3 times CPU + RAM in 2 hours each - temperatures of 4 cores < 60C.

Our Q6600 computer is equipped with an MSI P35 Neo 2 FR, 2 Ballistix DDR2 800 sticks and a Cooler Master Hyper 212 - running @ 3.3 GHZ with room temp @ 76F (we're trying to save energy).
VCore is 1.3v in BIOS and 1.275 in idle CPUZ. VDIMM is set at 2.1v with 4-4-4-12 2T timings.

We may need to stress test more rigorously in the future but right now we consider our overclocking a success and move on.

 

[nerp]

I got my 2.0 ghz E2180 to 3.2 ghz stable with only a minimal increase in volts. With C1E and EIST enabled, it idles at 1.1 volts or so and consumes less power. Under load, this thing gives me insane FPS when encoding XviD and outperforms chips that cost much more. At 3.2ghz, this chip is as fast as some of the most expensive chips in Intels lineup at stock speeds (trust me, I know that you guys are getting 4ghz on the wolfies, i'll be joining you this summer -- at half the price).

That said, i think I have a successfull overclock. I've got $250 to $300 performance for a $69 pricetag. The difference between stock 2ghz and 3.2 is night and day with this chip. Everything is WORLDS faster -- the OS, games, crunching, encoding, etc. You name it. Massive increase in speed with only minimal adjusting. Prime 24/7 stable, etc. This machine will not crash. Period.

 

[Captante]

To me the earmarks of a successful overclock are stability equal to the same hardware setup running at defaults combined with enough of a performance gain to be noticable by the seat of your pants.

 

[maxxdoutek9]

I think the OP has hit it right on the head. For a gamer, it might be FPS. For a person who is into photo editing or something it might mean how well you can run photoshop and illustrator simultaneously. But there are tons of benchmarks out there so just go with the one that matches your needs.

 

[DSF]

I don't consider benchmarks to be the measure of a successful overclock.

Did it improve your experience?
-Did it increase your enjoyment of games by increasing FPS or allowing you to raise settings you couldn't otherwise?
-Did it decrease the time necessary for you to process photo/video/audio?
-Did it decrease the time your business spends on heavy calculations?
-Is it just plain fun for you to tweak and see how much you can get out of a machine?

If any of those is a yes, why not consider it successful? (Assuming of course that it's stable.)

 

[TheWrongTree]

Excellent. Interesting replies, everyone!

Of those of you who do or have overclocked... what sorts of gains do you see in it? I mean, are we talking major "OMG, my compy kicks ass now!" kinds of gains or more like 'well, that seemed to be a little better" kinds of gains or "well, I know it's going faster.. even though I can't see it" sorts of gains?

 

[TigerMonsoonDragon]

i stick to prime 95

 

[nerp]

Originally posted by: TheWrongTree
Excellent. Interesting replies, everyone!

Of those of you who do or have overclocked... what sorts of gains do you see in it? I mean, are we talking major "OMG, my compy kicks ass now!" kinds of gains or more like 'well, that seemed to be a little better" kinds of gains or "well, I know it's going faster.. even though I can't see it" sorts of gains?

In my case, bringing the E2180 from 2 to 3.2ghz is night and day. Everything is MUCH faster and it's very noticable. Games, apps, you name it.

 

[Hulk]

I pick a chip with a multiplier/FSB so that I can keep the FSB at a "standard" setting. And I also keep the Vcore actual at or below manufacturers specs. 3 hours of Orthos with stability and I'm good to go. This has worked for me for the past few years. I am a conservative overclocker and don't go for that last 5 or 10% of MHz.

Main rig below in sig. HTPC E2160 at 3.0.

 

[Martimus]

Originally posted by: TheWrongTree
Excellent. Interesting replies, everyone!

Of those of you who do or have overclocked... what sorts of gains do you see in it? I mean, are we talking major "OMG, my compy kicks ass now!" kinds of gains or more like 'well, that seemed to be a little better" kinds of gains or "well, I know it's going faster.. even though I can't see it" sorts of gains?

My computer never seemed slow at 2.2GHz, but after I overclocked it I noticed that I don't have the horrible slideshow type moments in Oblivion anymore. I used to get them on occasion before. I don't see any other differences though.

 

[heyheybooboo]

If you want to drive yourself nutz download Sandra

Takes ""too much information"" to a whole new level ... pretty neat, though

 

[flexy]

1st a warning:

Overclocking is an art.

I wrote this yesterday:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2164153&enterthread=y

btw. yo can OC AMD as well as Intel. Ironic that now with C2D people say "AMD is not overclocker friendly"

I have an overclocked AMD rig across the room.

 

[amenx]

Not all chips scale in performance relative to their OC percentage gains, but C2Ds do. ie, a 30% OC on a C2D gets you a 30% gain in performance (confirmed in benchmarks). However, I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that AMDs performance does not scale commensurate with its OC like a C2D does.

 

[TheWrongTree]

Originally posted by: flexy
1st a warning:

Overclocking is an art.

I wrote this yesterday:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2164153&enterthread=y

btw. yo can OC AMD as well as Intel. Ironic that now with C2D people say "AMD is not overclocker friendly"

I have an overclocked AMD rig across the room.

Everyone seems to say that the Intels now are drastically more overclockable. It was never a concern for me in purchasing my AMD, but do you think that this is inaccurate? Or is it maybe only semi-accurate?

 

[TheWrongTree]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
If you want to drive yourself nutz download Sandra

Takes ""too much information"" to a whole new level ... pretty neat, though

No. No, I don't want to drive myself nuts. lol That does look like information overload.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: amenx
However, I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that AMDs performance does not scale commensurate with its OC like a C2D does.

All current processors, except for the Phenom, scale equally well.

Originally posted by: TheWrongTree
Everyone seems to say that the Intels now are drastically more overclockable.

They are, unfortunately for AMD.

 

[v8envy]

Originally posted by: TheWrongTree
[
Everyone seems to say that the Intels now are drastically more overclockable. It was never a concern for me in purchasing my AMD, but do you think that this is inaccurate? Or is it maybe only semi-accurate?

You tell me. 3.33 ghz out of a $71 chip on a $80 motherboard with $12 RAM, using stock cooling and a mild voltage bump to 1.41v BIOS. You'd need about a 3.6 to 5 ghz AMD x2 (depending on app) to equal the typical computing oomph of my budget machine.

People willing to blow the 'big bucks' on a 45nm CPU (e.g. X3110 or E8400), a higher end MB, better cooling and higher grade RAM can expect over 4 ghz out of their dual core. At which point there isn't a dual core AMD product made that'll come close.

Same thing with quads. You could win the lottery and get a Phenom that'll clock over 2.7 ghz. And you could also win the lottery and get a 3.8 ghz Q6600. In reality you'll have to be the most unlucky person on the planet to get a G0 quad that won't hit 3.2 ghz (I qualify with a Xeon 3210 which tops out at 2.998 ghz) while 2.6 ghz Phenom OCs are pretty remarkable, and quite a few won't run stable on core #2 unless downclocked to 2.2 ghz or so.

 

[Captante]

Originally posted by: TheWrongTree
Excellent. Interesting replies, everyone!

Of those of you who do or have overclocked... what sorts of gains do you see in it? I mean, are we talking major "OMG, my compy kicks ass now!" kinds of gains or more like 'well, that seemed to be a little better" kinds of gains or "well, I know it's going faster.. even though I can't see it" sorts of gains?

To this day the most noticable gains I've seen have been from taking an old Celeron 366/66 cpu up to 550/100 on an Abit BE6-II which felt like it was twice as fast as stock ... although my current Q6600 @ 3.2ghz is noticably faster then default, the gain isn't nearly as dramatic even though its by far the fastest PC I've ever had.

The best I ever did with an AMD was an Opteron 170 @ 2.8ghz and again while it was noticable, it couldn't touch the gains from that old Celeron!

 

[Zap]

CPU-Z screenie and SuperPI run FTW! Oh wait, this isn't Xtremesystems.

For me the benefit is being able to have a more expensive CPU for less money, by buying the cheaper CPU and clocking it to the speed of the more expensive one. It's like getting something for nothing.