Why bother OC'ing?

[narcotic]

I recently finished building my first fully self built system (A64 3000+ with all the regular crap...).
Offcourse I've been reading my forums before I got the system, so I knew I got a machine who's very capable of some nice overclocking.
Being a total newbie to overclocking, I had my system crash more then you can imagine, eventually, I managed to stabalize an okayish OC.
I ran all the benchmarks before OC, and after OC, and I've got to admit, I was impressed with some of the results.
But, then it started occuring to me... Ok, I get better benchmarks, and...? Do I feel better experience when using my system? Well, hardly.
If I wouldn't know it's overclocked, I probably wouldn't even notice.
IMO, what an average user (well, anandtech avg.) would get out of overclocking are 2 things:
1. Nice way to "waste" time - which is good if you really like computers.
2. Some sort of satisfaction, for getting the most out of your system.

Performance gains? Well, its somthing most of us won't really feel, since you really need to be squizing the juices out of your system (somthing like 40% or more of an OC), and to do that, you need:
1. alot of knowledge, some luck, and propper hardware - there are very few here which have them.
2. Be willing to significantly shorten your system's life time - since you're pumping throguh it loads it was not designed to withstand in the long run.

Am I saying don't overclock? No, I think you should overclock, or at least play around with your system a little.
First of all its a lot of fun, second, you learn a lot.
What I am saying though is, once you're sone playing with the system, and seeing what it's capable of, I would return it @stock. Simply because the added value is usually not high enough.
If you had an A64 2800+, would you consider upgrading to A60 3200+? probably not...

To me, I got most benfit (i.e noticable gain) from overclocking my gpu, there I could see some difference, and there are great utilities to OC your gpu instantly, without having to worry about anything, and once you're done gaming for example, you go back to @stock (or after restart). But unless you do alot of video editing, or somthing like that, most of us won't feel much of a difference with a cpu being even 25% faster.

So, the bottom line to me is: play around with overclocking, experience it, enjoy it, but unless you're gonna do a 40% or more overclock (which will have its toll), go back to @stock once you're done, for all the reasons listed above.
Thanks for reading. -->you may now flame me.

(Edit: corrected "some" spelling)

 

[Rottie]

I don't want to overclock cpu to break the warranty and I don't have money to replace it. If you have some big money then go for it cuz you don't care about the warranty.

 

[CaBoOse999]

What are you using the computer for? When I play games I get pretty large gains from it.

 

[paladiin]

I also agree it really depends on what you're doing with your computer. If you're just surfing the web, sending e-mail, typing up letters in Word, and playing Solitaire, of course overclocking won't make any noticeable difference. Heck, I can do all that with a 233Mhz computer and it works just fine.

But if you're playing serious games (ie HL2/Doom3) overclocking can increase your performance. That can translate into either smoother gameplay, or (more importantly) being able to sustain an acceptable frame rate while increasing visual factors. If you're encoding DVD's, it means you're done faster. Same with editing your own home movies. Or pretty much any other CPU intensive work your average user will do.

I hear what you're saying though. Outside of gaming performance, most comes down to just "saving time." At the most, we're talking a matter of minutes. For most people, I'm sure that's not a big deal. Especially when we're talking about state of the art technology like the 90mm A64's. At stock, that CPU is going to be faster than 90% of what your average users are using. Overclocking past that certainly will seem overkill to them.

For me though, overclocking has many benefits. One is of course value. I too recently purchased a 3000+ A64. Sure, AMD offers many other, more expensive A64 CPU's. Since I'm on a budget, I can purchase the less expensive model and obtain the performance of a faster model via overclocking. Prior to this, I had a Barton 2500+ which I overclocked to 3200+ speeds. That CPU lasted me 2 years, and is still going strong (only reason I upgraded is that my wife needed a faster system to play WoW on, so she got it and I got a new CPU).

Which leads me to another benefit. Overclocking extends the time needed before upgrading. Since my overclocks are always modest and within safe parameters, I've never had a CPU "die" on me due to overclocking, even after years of running it overclocked. I'm the type of person that expects a CPU to meet my needs for a minimum of 2 years. Overclocking helps me achieve that. So while overclocking my a64 may not benefit me very much today, in the long run it will help me put off upgrading once applications are available that require such power to run quickly.

And last of all, it's simply free performance. Who wouldn't say no to that? Even if all I could safely overclock was 100Mhz on my 3000+, I'd still take it over stock. Faster is faster, and faster for free is always good in my book. Will I notice it while posting on message boards? Likely not, but in the back of my mind I'll know that I'm getting free extra performance when I run applications that can take advantage of it.

 

[Aenslead]

I conccur with what Paladiin said. I am not too much of a gamer, but just thinking that with my 2800+ I got to 3500+ speeds without the need of investing a single dime, and what's more, having 30% more clock speed just because a have some knowledge on the OC area, well, is great. Free performance, extracting every single value bit your computer has, and the bragging rights are the main reasons.

 

[narcotic]

Rottie - The thing is, if you have "big money", then why bother overclocking anyway? I mean, if you can afford the most expenssive system, then you probably don't need to overclock. You would usually overclock if you have a budget system, and want more. And then you are correct, you are taking a risk of ruinning somthing that you might have hard time (economicly) to replace.

CaBoOse999 - I use my (home) system for: 40% office type of work, 35% gaming, 25% programing.
I agree with you, when you play, you get most noticeable benefit out of a good overclock, but most benefit come from overclocking the gpu (for me anyway), overclocking the cpu in the levels I'm willing to go (about 25%) gives me little to no noticeable gain.

I just want to add a word about luck when overclocking - it is very important you get the right chip. For example, A64 3000+ cpu might have been initialy manufactored as A64 3500+ which didn't pass some accuracy test, so AMD lowerd its clock, say to 1.8ghz, where it makes no errors. On the other hand an A64 3000+, can be one manufacotred as such, and completed tests successfuly. If you buy A64 3000+, and you get a chip from the first kind, you've practicly hit the OC jackpot, since the chip is designed to take much greater work load, and though its not accurate at greater speeds, those calculations mistakes, won't affect you, unless you're trying to find the 99999999^999999999999 number after the dot of PI for example.

 

[narcotic]

Originally posted by: paladiin
I also agree it really depends on what you're doing with your computer. If you're just surfing the web, sending e-mail, typing up letters in Word, and playing Solitaire, of course overclocking won't make any noticeable difference. Heck, I can do all that with a 233Mhz computer and it works just fine.

But if you're playing serious games (ie HL2/Doom3) overclocking can increase your performance. That can translate into either smoother gameplay, or (more importantly) being able to sustain an acceptable frame rate while increasing visual factors. If you're encoding DVD's, it means you're done faster. Same with editing your own home movies. Or pretty much any other CPU intensive work your average user will do.

I hear what you're saying though. Outside of gaming performance, most comes down to just "saving time." At the most, we're talking a matter of minutes. For most people, I'm sure that's not a big deal. Especially when we're talking about state of the art technology like the 90mm A64's. At stock, that CPU is going to be faster than 90% of what your average users are using. Overclocking past that certainly will seem overkill to them.

For me though, overclocking has many benefits. One is of course value. I too recently purchased a 3000+ A64. Sure, AMD offers many other, more expensive A64 CPU's. Since I'm on a budget, I can purchase the less expensive model and obtain the performance of a faster model via overclocking. Prior to this, I had a Barton 2500+ which I overclocked to 3200+ speeds. That CPU lasted me 2 years, and is still going strong (only reason I upgraded is that my wife needed a faster system to play WoW on, so she got it and I got a new CPU).

Which leads me to another benefit. Overclocking extends the time needed before upgrading. Since my overclocks are always modest and within safe parameters, I've never had a CPU "die" on me due to overclocking, even after years of running it overclocked. I'm the type of person that expects a CPU to meet my needs for a minimum of 2 years. Overclocking helps me achieve that. So while overclocking my a64 may not benefit me very much today, in the long run it will help me put off upgrading once applications are available that require such power to run quickly.

And last of all, it's simply free performance. Who wouldn't say no to that? Even if all I could safely overclock was 100Mhz on my 3000+, I'd still take it over stock. Faster is faster, and faster for free is always good in my book. Will I notice it while posting on message boards? Likely not, but in the back of my mind I'll know that I'm getting free extra performance when I run applications that can take advantage of it.

I do not agree 100% with everything you said. However this was an excellent post, very good feedback. Thanks. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[RussianSensation]

Here is another way to think about it. If you can get more performance for free why not?

Also, I bought P4 2.6 and overclocked to 3.2ghz. My last processor was 1600+. Thus, i doubled my speed. I agree with you that even 25% increase in performance is not noticeable (at least for me from 2.6 to 3.2ghz); but 100% was. So next time I upgrade I'll make sure I get somewhere along 6000+ rating (or I can get 5500+ and overclock there). Therefore, another benefit of overclocking is waiting longer before wasting more money on computer upgrades.

Finally, a lot of people feel better getting something for $150 and overclocking it to perform at FX55 $700US price.

EDIT: Also consider videocards. Say you get 6800Gt and overclock it to 420/1140. Now the argument is that you can just get 6800Ultra nad overclock that too. Problem is it'll only get to like 450/1200. The overclocking on 6800GT saves you a pile of money and will most likely get you pretty close to Ultra's maximum overclocks as well. So why pay $100 more when 2 cards will perform nearly identical when overclocked?

 

[Duvie]

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=28&threadid=1531414&enterthread=y

Take a look at the encoding apps...Even 5-10% gain can be HUGE TIME in 3-4 hour encoding projects...

imagine a 5% gain in a 6-8hour WMV HD encoding 2pass....18-24min...10% will give you 36-48min savings....40% is a couple of hours!!!!

 

[GuitarDaddy]

I think it also has a lot to do with how much you use your computer. Someone who uses their computer 1-2 hours a day will not notice the benefits of O/C so much. But I'm pretty much a 24/7 user myself, If I'm awake chances are I'm on a computer either at work or at home.

For me my 30% overclock is very noticeable, in the course of a day I can get much more accomplished with the O/C settings. And as previously posted it really matters what your running also. In surfing the web, checking email, working in MS office, etc... the only thing I notice is a slightly snappier response, probabally measured in fractions of a second. However many of the things that I do show huge performance increases, like working with large images in Photoshop or Burning/Ripping DVD's and CD's or editing home videos. I'm not a huge gamer but I do play the newer games, and as previously posted the performance is quite noticeable in the playability and smoothness of gameplay.

And as far as shortening the lifespan or killing your equipment? Just no gonna happen IMO as long as you use some common sense. I've been overclocking every machine I touched for over 5yrs and I haven't had any component failures, with the exception being video cards. I agree that some of the biggest real world gains in gaming come from overclocking the GPU, but GPU's are much more likely to die from O/C than CPU's due to the extreme temps that can occur with overclocking GPU's

 

[Fenuxx]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Here is another way to think about it. If you can get more performance for free why not?

That's the key right there. If you can afford to bite the bullet if your chip goes south, then by all means do it. You see, some (hell, alot) of people can't afford to drop $500+ on a CPU, what with videocards so expensive, and mobos at $150+ (for a good one), you can see that the dollars add up quick for top-end components. This is why it has always been good practice (especially on a tight budget) to buy components with modern architectures that are shared with high-end components, and then give them a little "boost", via overclocking.

The first example is NVIDIA's GeForce 6800GT (which I happen to own), it shares the EXACT same core as the more expensive Ultra, but is cheaper, and it is clocked slightly lower. However, with the proper finesse, and the proper tools, one can take a 6800GT to Ultra speeds, and beyond.

The Second example is AMD's Winchester core Athlon 64 (which, again, I happen to own). It shares the same core as between several models, the 3000+, 3200+, 3500+, and 3800+ (not the FX-Series), but many people can't afford the expensive 3800+. So, some go out and buy the relatively inexpensive 3200+. This, IMHO, is the chip of choice as it has an even, smooth, 10x multiplier, making it a prime candidate for overclocking. Unfortunately, the "vanilla" A64 can't be multiplier unlocked (save for "downsizing" the multiplier), so you're simply stuck with FSB increases. In order to get my 2.53GHz clock speed on my 3200+ (stock 2.00GHz), I set the memory to run at a "base" speed of 166MHz (as opposed to 200MHz), and then set the FSB to 253MHz. And, because the memory essentially "starts out" at 166MHz (DDR333), it adds 53MHz to 166, making an even 219MHz. However, for some strange reason (probably my Neo2 mobo), my memory runs at only 210MHz. Finally, I bump up the CPU voltage a bit to keep it aware of "who's boss of whom". However, I have a perfectly stable 2.53GHz CPU. Many programs actually tell me that I have an "AMD Athlon 64 4100+ CPU". I guess that isn't that bad, especially for a sub-$200 CPU, is it?

The 2 explainations above are only 2 miniscule examples of the payoffs of overclocking, as there are TONS more. However, there are risks. For example, a CPU. If you happen to get a CPU that has abysmal clock-speed headroom, then you won't get any overclocking potential at all. However, this is usually more likely at the high-end of the spectrum, though it can still happen at the low-end as well. Also, you could take the chance of frying not only the CPU, but the mobo and the memory as well. This is why it is crucial to have a well-designed cooling scheme, and to not take bold chances by simply saying "well, I've seen some [insert CPU name here] hit [insert clock-speed\model number here], so I'll just try it out at that speed and see what happens." No. The proper way to OC is to simply take it slowly, but surely, as all CPU's simply have different clock speed headrooms, and no CPU is identical.

Boy, it seems like I just gave a friggin' lecture . I hope this clears some stuff up.

 

[narcotic]

well, I hear many of you are saying that a safe overclock will not shorten the lifespan of the cpu, but you are talking about overclocking in the range that I didn't feel much of a boost (aprox. 25%).
what happens when you REALLY overclock? Like Duvie... I mean, he probably feels great improvment, I read his comparison post, as most of you probably did, but the question is how healthy is it for the hardware to run at over 40% more than @stock?
Can you expect a system to run stable like this for years? (3 or more)

 

[Duvie]

"IMO, what an average user (well, anandtech avg.) would get out of overclocking are 2 things:
1. Nice way to "waste" time - which is good if you really like computers."

Funny that is what I think of ppl who buy computers for game playing!!!!

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: narcotic
Rottie - The thing is, if you have "big money", then why bother overclocking anyway? I mean, if you can afford the most expenssive system, then you probably don't need to overclock.

Pay more for the same performance just because you have the money? :roll:
Even if you've got Bill Gates money that doesn't make sense! Ever wonder how rich people got rich? The wealthiest people I know are also the tightest and the most price/performance oriented people I know.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: narcotic
well, I hear many of you are saying that a safe overclock will not shorten the lifespan of the cpu, but you are talking about overclocking in the range that I didn't feel much of a boost (aprox. 25%).
what happens when you REALLY overclock? Like Duvie... I mean, he probably feels great improvment, I read his comparison post, as most of you probably did, but the question is how healthy is it for the hardware to run at over 40% more than @stock?
Can you expect a system to run stable like this for years? (3 or more)

The speed wont shorten the life of the cpu...it is the overvolting that shortens the life. The question is then what is the normal life of a cpu?? 10yrs?? If overvolting less then 10% shortens it by 1/2 even 5 years is plenty sufficient for most. What would that cpu be worth in 5 years???

I imagine that most of my devices can run for near a decade if I ran stock.

I run my ram at below rated speeds (wont do more) and under the manufacturers spec'd vdimm...if it dies I am rmaing it....

I run my mobo over spec'd speeds, but I dont feel sorry for thiose bastards. If it dies I will rma it. Dont put the overclocking options in there if ou dont want ppl to overclock...

So really my only risk is my gpu. I overvolt the vagp to 1.55v versus 1.5v...should have no effect. I run it at 385/850 now. It ran fine at 395/900 and then I backed it off...It will last for many many years.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Since you posted this in an overclockers forum your not going to find many that agree with you

Maybe you should go over to the Porshe owners forum and post "Why would anyone spend $100k for a two seater sports car?" I'm sure you will receive a warm reception

 

[DrCrap]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Since you posted this in an overclockers forum your not going to find many that agree with you

Maybe you should go over to the Porshe owners forum and post "Why would anyone spend $100k for a two seater sports car?" I'm sure you will receive a warm reception

well, he said you can flame him (so he probably figured he's not going to get much support here)...

And, I personaly agree with Duvie, but for some reason when I say f**ke'm and RMA it if it burns, then people get all preachy at me.
If they don't want me to OC, then don't f**king put all the OC menu and sh!t in the BIOS, and don't be like nVidia, yeah you have OC built in the driver, but you need coolbits to unlock it... give me a break!

 

[Duvie]

I only say that for the mobos...I pay top premium dollar for a board that is essentially an "enthusiast" board becuase of the voltage and ocing options. I consider that premium an insurance policy. I have never killed a board so in my mind they are ahead....However I have seen many a person's board go haywire when using these ocing options (kindly put there by the mobo manufacturer) and taking out all sorts of components. Where are the boards to step up and pay for that?? They dont....They put a nice red danger in the bios saying this may harm the cpu or whatever component you are messing with. Like the drug dealer giving you the needle and drugs and not taking any culpability....

I do not advocate this for ram, cpu, and or any other component I can think of.....

Some mobos dont have ocing options an only using mod or other hacked bioses did they get them...however in this case these options are present in the MSI official bioses...No sympathy...

 

[Concillian]

To some extent I agree with the OP.

A serious challenge to overclockers:
- Un-overclock your processor for a week
- Play games as usual for three days or so (at the same settings you used before)
- Benchmark the games you play (at the same settings you used before)

Post up your results.

I have a 2800+ that overclocks in the 2350 range. I played for a week at 1800 MHz and this is what I found:
WoW -- No noticeable difference, FPS didn't appear to change, but I didn't use FRAPS
Battlefield: Vietnam -- No noticeable difference. FRAPS of a loop I use to benchmark showed ZERO difference in average and minimum FPS
UT2004 -- No noticeable difference. Benchmark showed ZERO difference in FPS between the two speeds.

Subjectively and objectively I couldn't tell a difference while gaming. This with a well overclocked x800pro, and I was running 1280 x 1024 with AA/AF enabled in UT and BFV, 1600 x 1200 only AF enabled in WoW.

Sure I can tell the difference when running specific benchmarks like benching games at 640x480 or SuperPi and the like, but don't fool yourself into thinking your gaming performance is actually getting better with a faster CPU. I have been an overclocker since 486 days. It's fun to find the limits, and I will continue to do so. But for everyday use, I back things off and run lower voltage to save on my utilities bill (I have 3 computers that are on 24/7 every little bit helps)

I disagree somewhat with the viewpoint of why OC, as there are cases where more CPU power is a good thing, I simply advocate thinking about how you actually benefit from OC'ing. I did that, and in my case I discovered that I wasn't getting any noticeable performance increase.

 

[Duvie]

A serious challenge to overclockers:
- Un-overclock your processor for a week
- Play games as usual for three days or so (at the same settings you used before)
- Benchmark the games you play (at the same settings you used before)


Seems like you left ppl out like me.....I dont game!!!! I FH 24/7 so I think I will stay where I am at full time....I encode about 5-10% of the time...I do CAD work about 15% of the time....if I didn't do those things you would be right...

 

[Concillian]

Originally posted by: Duvie
Seems like you left ppl out like me.....I dont game!!!! I FH 24/7 so I think I will stay where I am at full time

My intention was to include people like this in this statement:

I disagree somewhat with the viewpoint of why OC, as there are cases where more CPU power is a good thing, I simply advocate thinking about how you actually benefit from OC'ing.

In your case, you have thought about and investigated your benefit. Just in doing this I think you are one step ahead of most.

My main point was the observation that many people OC for the sake of OC'ing and little else when you look at the actual gain. For some this is a hobby and that's great, but I think there are people who are under the impression that they are improving gaming performance and I think these people are not under the correct impression.

 

[Fenuxx]

Originally posted by: Concillian
My main point was the observation that many people OC for the sake of OC'ing and little else when you look at the actual gain. For some this is a hobby and that's great, but I think there are people who are under the impression that they are improving gaming performance and I think these people are not under the correct impression.

Thats a good point. However, IMHO, if people are going to overclock, they are going to do it because they DO realize the benefit of overclocking. You're most likely not going to get some dude that bought an E-Machines computer overclocking just because he can. No. Most, if not all, people overclock to squeeze every last ounce of performance they can get to essentially "keep up" with the people that have $5000 machines. Not saying that there aren't those who do it just to do it, as well as those who do it just for bragging rights. I just think that people who overclock realize the amount of benefit they will get when doing it.

Alot of people do it to just simply put off upgrading as long as possible. Take, for example, people with Athlon XP machines. Many of them get extravagent while trying to get the most out of their systems to put off upgrading. Because, as we all know, the Athlon XP\Socket A platform is pretty much dead. Not saying that there isn't performance there, but, who would get a Athlon XP\Socket A system at this time? Not anybody that knows what their doing. People that already have them, however, try to squeeze everything they can out of it, essentially to "keep up".

 

[teutonicknight]

As a video editor, overclocking does have a big benefit for me. As people have already said a 25 percent improvement in preformance is certianly a big jump. Right now I am running a 3200+ at above 2.5 GHz, a very nice improvement indeed, at no extra cost. I didn't buy fancy ram, or a fancy MOBO, just free preformance.

 

[cbehnken]

Why ask stupid questions? Why does anyone buy a 3200 instead of a 3000? Why buy an x800 instead of a gf4mx?

 

[DrMrLordX]

Just my two cents, but running my CPU at 2.32 ghz instead of 1.6 ghz has resulted in slightly faster boots times under WinXP. It's sped up a few other "everyday" tasks as well. Considering the fact that it's still at stock vcore, I consider overclocking my CPU to have been well worth the trouble.