Is OCing worth it?

H

Hotwir3

n00b
Joined
Nov 17, 2008
Messages
16
Hey guys, I have the i7 920 running at the untouched 2.67 GHz. I pretty much just use the computer for high-end gaming. I have never overclocked before so it would take me a lot of extra time to learn and make sure I am doing everything right, since the penalty for messing up can be no fun.

Anyways, would overclocking to 3.5-3.6 GHz be worth it for gaming? Would I see any improvement in framerate which would allow me to increase Crysis and Arma2 graphics?

In other words, I don't need the bragging rights. I just want to squeeze the highest quality graphics that I can.
 
Here is my two cents.. I'm not an overclocker either but I had similar thoughts to you and tried it a few weeks ago.

Firstly, "is it worth it" is purely about whether the application you are using is bound by CPU speed, GPU speed, amount of RAM installed etc. WoW, for example, is more CPU dependant than GPU dependant, whereas other games maybe like Crysis are all about the GPU rather than the CPU. Some apps will benefit, others will not. I'm sure some googling will tell you which games in your collection are CPU/GPU/RAM hungry etc.

In terms of the effort to try it.. it's negligable. I have a Duo Core 3.0ghz CPU and after 15 mins of research on the Web I had some template BIOS settings to try. 5 mins later I was running at 3.6ghz with little to no effort.

So overall, my advice it try it.

1000
 
i am a benchmarker at heart so obviously im going to say go for it but, there are things to keep in mind.
i7 CPUS run at 135W and produce a boat load of heat so unless you plan on purchasing a cpu cooler overclocking really isnt an option. secondly i read this when i first started overclocking and will continue to pass it along: if you cannot afford to replace it dont overclock it
 
It's definitely worth it. 3ghz + seems to be the sweet spot, and is pretty easily attainable on nearly any modern cpu.

If you want to be safe with overclocking, just do what I do. Try to get the highest stable overclock without ever raising your voltage.

I'm currently running 3.4ghz on my I7 920 at slightly less then 1.25 volts. It might be able to go a bit higher, but my room is way hot, so I'll leave it there.
 
Almost all i7s can overclock to Extreme edition clocks, given proper conditions. IMO it's worth reaping the benefits of an architecture. To let all that performance lay dormant is a waste. :D
 
what if you want to OC but also want the cpu/motherboard to last 5+ years?

is moderate OC'ing ok or does it significantly decrease a cpu's life? seems like most overclockers here replace their parts fairly frequently so they don't run into long-term reliability issues.

i figure voltages and temperatures play a much bigger role in reliability than actual ghz speed.
 
georgexi said:
what if you want to OC but also want the cpu/motherboard to last 5+ years?

is moderate OC'ing ok or does it significantly decrease a cpu's life? seems like most overclockers here replace their parts fairly frequently so they don't run into long-term reliability issues.

i figure voltages and temperatures play a much bigger role in reliability than actual ghz speed.
Click to expand...

A moderate overclock is not going to significantly shorten the life of the CPU/mobo. Most overclockers do replace things often, however I know I've got 5+ year machines that I've handed off to other people who still work fine. As long as you don't go crazy with the voltage you'll be fine. I mean if you start trying to push 1.5+ volts through that 920, that is of course a different story. Keep it under about 1.4 and you'll be happy.
 
georgexi said:
what if you want to OC but also want the cpu/motherboard to last 5+ years?

is moderate OC'ing ok or does it significantly decrease a cpu's life? seems like most overclockers here replace their parts fairly frequently so they don't run into long-term reliability issues.

i figure voltages and temperatures play a much bigger role in reliability than actual ghz speed.
Click to expand...

It's not that we have to replace that often , at least for me, it's my hobby. So, I usually upgrade my CPU, motherboard every year or so or at least every generation. Same with video cards. So it's because we want to replace it that often, not that we have to.

As long as you have a quality PSU, good aftermaket cooling, good case airflow and don't go crazy with voltages there should be zero issues with lifespan and reliability.

Plus I like getting the extra performance. It's a good thing to have a CPU that cost me a couple of hundred bucks run faster than a CPU that costs over a grand.
 
A little improvement, but it would be almost negligible. The only improvement I noticed was ripping and encoding movies to other formats.

It feels nice though to have an 800 mhz increase though.
 
Almost every processor I've OC'ed is still working as good as new. (knock on wood! Lolz.) Check your volts to see if they're in line with other OC's. Also, research on the thermal envelop that your processor is designed to work within.

I can't say the same for motherboards and memory. I had crucial DDR1 500 ballistix that made me go "ballistic" over their decay. Went from DDR500 to DDR200 in two years. hahahaha... Motherboards are better nowadays. The solid caps either pop real quick (under stress testing) and quickly show defects or they work for a long time.

I'd venture to say that by the time any ill effects due to overclocking begin to manifest, your OC'ed parts will most likely be obsolete.
 
Kangg said:
It's not that we have to replace that often , at least for me, it's my hobby. So, I usually upgrade my CPU, motherboard every year or so or at least every generation. Same with video cards. So it's because we want to replace it that often, not that we have to.

As long as you have a quality PSU, good aftermaket cooling, good case airflow and don't go crazy with voltages there should be zero issues with lifespan and reliability.

Plus I like getting the extra performance. It's a good thing to have a CPU that cost me a couple of hundred bucks run faster than a CPU that costs over a grand.
Click to expand...

oh i think you may have misunderstood me :) i wasn't saying overclockers replace their hardware more often because of problems due to overclocking. more like overclockers tend to upgrade their hardware more often than a typical user. and since they upgrade so often, they don't hold onto the hardware long enough to experience any of the long-term overclocking wearing effects.

i'm shooting for a stable 3.8ghz i7 OC. so far, vcore/qpi < 1.3v, temps < 80.
from what others have said, seems like i'm not pushing the hardware to any extremes so i should be safe :cool:
 
Hey guys, appreciate the replies. I figure I'll wait and see and I'll do it if I ever REALLY want to. I shouldn't do it "just because".
 
Hotwir3 said:
I shouldn't do it "just because".
Click to expand...

Why not, now a days a mild overclock is simple and safe. I do notice a difference even with a mild to moderate increase in day to day stuff. Both in my sig run 24/7 with no issues whatsoever.
 
georgexi said:
oh i think you may have misunderstood me :) i wasn't saying overclockers replace their hardware more often because of problems due to overclocking. more like overclockers tend to upgrade their hardware more often than a typical user. and since they upgrade so often, they don't hold onto the hardware long enough to experience any of the long-term overclocking wearing effects.

i'm shooting for a stable 3.8ghz i7 OC. so far, vcore/qpi < 1.3v, temps < 80.
from what others have said, seems like i'm not pushing the hardware to any extremes so i should be safe :cool:
Click to expand...

Mine is running at that at, I think it's 1.16~~vcore (in sig) stable (LinX + Prime95 8+ hours).
I was having trouble making it stable with the x21 multiplier at those voltages so I shut turbo down and manually told it to make the multi x19 and 200 bus. It was a win/win as I was then able to run my ram at max speed.

I was able to boot and operate at 1.13 but stress testing wouldn't stabilize till 1.16.

Are you on stock cooling?

While this is more opinion than empirical fact, replacing the stock cooling with aftermarket then increasing the clock while keeping the voltage the same would at LEAST net you a 0 sum game in life expectancy at the higher clock.
 
georgexi said:
what if you want to OC but also want the cpu/motherboard to last 5+ years?

is moderate OC'ing ok or does it significantly decrease a cpu's life? seems like most overclockers here replace their parts fairly frequently so they don't run into long-term reliability issues.

i figure voltages and temperatures play a much bigger role in reliability than actual ghz speed.
Click to expand...

Old stuff I heavily overclocked and even volt modded back in the day is still running in computers I later built for people. I did undo any volt mods when I gave the parts away, but some of the stuff is 5-7 years old and still works like new... including processors, motherboards, and RAM.
 
I believe OC is worth it. I mean I easily gained a core speed upgrade on my Q9550 that I bought last November. I am running it at Q9650 speed and and at 1.15V. I have not tried to go any higher yet but I assume that will not be too hard to do and still keep 1.15V so that power remains low. I did however spend $20 something for an AC Freezer 7 Pro which reduced the stock idle temp from 55C to 35C and 4 core full load temps down from 75C to around 55C.
 
Running 1.02 vCore, 200x17 for 3.4GHz with hyperthreading enabled. This is on stock cooling. Load temps are 79-80C, which in reality I never really hit anyway. I idle around 55C. So it's a bit hot, but I was able to get almost a 30% overclock for no cost to me.

I tried 200x18 (3.6GHz), but my idle temps went up almost 10 degrees. I had to boost vCore 0.05 too, and I figured that 3.4GHz was enough for my intentions.

Maybe I'll get a new cooler? We'll see. Even the stock 920 on a DX58SO tells you to turbo it to 2.93GHz. Definitely do it if you can.
 
Just thought I'd chime in here and say overclocking is WELL worth it. I noticed a very tangible improvement in day-to-day tasks when i made the jump from 2.6 to 4.0, and it even seemed to help out my gaming on a mediocre 9800 GT. The improvement while encoding in sony vegas was huge.

Get yourself a decent aftermarket cooler and the sky is the limit, really. I don't want to say you are "guarunteed" any certain overclock but i would be very surprised if you had trouble getting to 3.8 or 4.0.
 
OP, see how far you can go using default volts.
This will cause the least extra stress on components.
Increasing the voltage has a larger effect on how long components will last.

Not that a decent overclock with higher voltages will reduce component life enough anyway but remember heat is the killer and higher voltage increases heat production using a square law, its not linear.
There are also voltage limits for the silicon which if exceeded will cause more rapid deterioration of the silicon circuits, again some of this is heat related.

To put some perspective on this, I am running an early E8400, default speed 3GHz.
Intels max rated voltage for the silicon is 1.365V (approx), I have been running at 1.4V 4.1GHz for over 1.5 years now with not a glitch in performance.
The CPU is cooled with a TRUE120 cooler + silent 120mm fan in an Antec 900 case (fans on low).
I have an 80mm fan blowing on the motherboard chipset coolers as these can also overheat when clocked.
So with decent cooling, you increase the safety limits and therefore can clock higher without extra penalty if precautions are taken.
Raising voltage is not advised for those that leave a PC for 1/2 a year without maintenance/cleaning though.

If you want a safe overclock, even with the stock heatsink, just slowly raise the FSB until you find where it doesnt work and drop back say 10MHz.
Make sure heatsinks remain free of dust by cleaning twice a year.
Keep the PC off the floor to reduce dust intake.
 
Hotwir3 said:
Hey guys, appreciate the replies. I figure I'll wait and see and I'll do it if I ever REALLY want to. I shouldn't do it "just because".
Click to expand...

LoL. The i7 is almost a "just because" purchase. I can understand you are a bit risk adverse because some people make overclocking sound complex, and it can be if you're trying to maximize your overclock. But for something this easy, yes you should do it "just because".

To merely "overclock" at all, for a low end overclock, you can do it very safely - it will take you around 10 seconds to go to the BIOS and find the one setting you need to change to overclock to 3.0Ghz and then change it safely. Specifically, just find BCLK and change the value from 133 to 150 and that's it! (then save it) ...you will have now have achieved your first overclock.

Hotwir3 said:
it would take me a lot of extra time to learn and make sure I am doing everything right
Click to expand...
Not true and it's too late now - if you've read the last sentence, you now know how to overclock safely to 3.0Ghz. Ok, if you have not done this before add an extra 5 minutes (to the aformentioned 10 seconds) to account for you looking at the BIOS settings without doing anything before touching anything.

(ok, I've deliberately left out lots of other options, because they are not relevant to someone starting off with overclocking and who wants to do it safely)
 
Last edited:
Why are you trying to over clock? Unless you are trying to beat someone in a CPU testing competition, it's really not good for your processor.
 
exitbs said:
Why are you trying to over clock? Unless you are trying to beat someone in a CPU testing competition, it's really not good for your processor.
Click to expand...

Another example of the closed minded dictating how to use your hardware.

Also please elaborate how its not good for the processor.
What effects will it have that you are concerned about?
 
Hamakua said:
Mine is running at that at, I think it's 1.16~~vcore (in sig) stable (LinX + Prime95 8+ hours).
I was having trouble making it stable with the x21 multiplier at those voltages so I shut turbo down and manually told it to make the multi x19 and 200 bus. It was a win/win as I was then able to run my ram at max speed.

I was able to boot and operate at 1.13 but stress testing wouldn't stabilize till 1.16.

Are you on stock cooling?

While this is more opinion than empirical fact, replacing the stock cooling with aftermarket then increasing the clock while keeping the voltage the same would at LEAST net you a 0 sum game in life expectancy at the higher clock.
Click to expand...

running with a Darkknight HSF (xigmatek 1283?) plus a billion case fans. i think my vcore sweet spot is a tad over 1.25v. would be nice to go lower but i'm running a C0/C1. what do you have your QPI set to?

do you guys use TurboV at all or set everything through BIOS? i'm finding that sometimes when i set vcore through TurboV, IntelBurnTest will BSOD. then i set the vcore through BIOS and everything is fine.

also every now and then, IntelBurnTest will error with "LinX.exe stopped working" or something like that. Vista is still running fine though. is this a sign of instability?
 
exitbs said:
Why are you trying to over clock? Unless you are trying to beat someone in a CPU testing competition, it's really not good for your processor.
Click to expand...

Whatever...

I've OC'd since the Athlon XP days...

Never once have I seen a chip burn out from overclocking as long as you have good cooling and know what you are doing.

I run my Q6600 2.4GHz at 3.6GHz and have done so since day 1. That's been about two years running like at, at about 65c load, almost 24/7.

Yes overclocks degrade over time and I'm sure my chip will start to degrade but honestly, who keeps chips more than 5 years? By the time overclocking would kill it of "natural causes" it will be terribly obsolete.

I say, overclock it if you need more speed, don't if you don't. If you don't need it you are just wasting power but in my line of work, photo rendering and video rendering, having the chip as fast as you can get it helps a lot. Why pay for a 3GHz chip when you can get a 2GHz chip for half price and OC it there?
 
exitbs said:
Why are you trying to over clock? Unless you are trying to beat someone in a CPU testing competition, it's really not good for your processor.
Click to expand...

Because I do whatever the hell I bloody want to troll! I care about what's good for me and mines!

Your CPU will be fully obsolete by the time ill effects show up if you're doing "smart" overclocking. Setting a i7 to 2.0V vcore is not good for your processor, but milking every ounce of performance I can out of processor is very good for it. As I see it, I'll be making sure it's being fully exploited by overclocking, isn't that more green? Oh wait, more carbon emissions... hahahaha...

Hell I think my celeron 300a would fire up if I wanted it to.
 
Hell I think my celeron 300a would fire up if I wanted it to.
Click to expand...

That started me on overclocking. I had a dual processor rig @ 466 MHz however I can not claim responsibility for that overclock. I bought the rig with hand picked cpus that were tested and guaranteed for their stability at that frequency.
 
exitbs said:
Why are you trying to over clock? Unless you are trying to beat someone in a CPU testing competition, it's really not good for your processor.
Click to expand...

Sure it's not good for your processor, nor is it bad for it. If the voltages and temps are kept under control, it's perfectly safe.

The one (yes one) CPU I've killed died through physical damage. I had a motherboard with an in socket temperature probe that stuck up too far and knocked a resistor off the bottom of an AXP 1700+.

maleficarus said:
Mild OCing is ok but extreme ocing is not IMO.
Click to expand...

Where are these people coming from? I always thought that this site catered to the people looking to push their personal tech as [H]ard as they can...

I always thought the underlying mantra around here was "If it ain't broke, fix it till it is." In other words: push your gear to the edge of stability, then bring it back a couple of mhz.

Hey Kyle - Have you registered oftocp.com yet?

* * *

Now as for the question "Is it worth it?" That is completely up to the individual.

There is little risk and depending on what games you play and apps you run there is plenty to gain.
 
Last edited:
NOOOO, you wouldn't see any increase in performance from and overclocked PC.

Any more dumb questions that I can give equally dumb answers to?

:D
 
It's not like it's all or nothing. Perhaps I'm showing my ignorance here but how many mobo's that you can overclock store only one settings profile? I keep two profiles; a standard profile (cool and quiet) that I use most of the time and a OC profile that I boot into when the performance is worth all the extra heat and fan noise.

Besides, personally I like to benchmark a new system to see what it's doing both standard and overclocked. Just to see "what if", even if I never use the OC settings. Never trying an overclock would be like buying a car, boat, motorcycle or airplane and not seeing how fast it'll go. What kind of fun is that?
 
echn111 said:
To merely "overclock" at all, for a low end overclock, you can do it very safely - it will take you around 10 seconds to go to the BIOS and find the one setting you need to change to overclock to 3.0Ghz and then change it safely. Specifically, just find BCLK and change the value from 133 to 150 and that's it! (then save it) ...you will have now have achieved your first overclock.
Click to expand...

I found it even easier than that. Go into BIOS, enable "dummy overclock" and "turbo". Instant and stable 3.3GHz. I was able to take my i920 D0 to 3.7GHz on stock voltages and it was only when I starting shooting for the stars that I needed to boost voltages. The EVGA E-leet utility proved handy that way. I've got it up to 4.2GHz stable at 1.35 volts. That's not my standard profile though; I normally just boot into 3.3 dummy.

Interesting point about the under-multiplying to get full RAM speed. I'll have to play around with that tonight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top