2500k any reason to overclock from 4ghz to 4.5ghz?

H

hdgamer

Gawd
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Messages
816
I had my chip at 4.5 when I first got it. Was stable at 1.35volts and temp was in the low 70's with prime95. Because of this hot summer I just lowered my clock to 4ghz at 1.17v and now I'm only getting 57 in prime 95. This chip is unreal. Still faster then my I7 920 at 3.6ghz...

I'm thinking of keeping these settings at 4ghz. Am I crazy for not wanting to waste the extra power since nothing in my rig seems to be cpu bottlenecked? Or am I missing something other then benchmarks?
 
I run mine at 4ghz as well, but my voltage is slightly higher. Temps are similar. I see no reason to go over 4ghz. I get 60FPS or better in all the games I play at max settings. Any higher seems like a waste at this point. We will see how BF3 does.
 
keep it low. once you feel the processor is a little slow, OC it a little (but most likely your HDD is the bottleneck, not the CPU, unless you run a lot of video processing)
 
Only real reason to do so would be just to get MOAR power. But youre not going to notice it anywhere except in benchmarks. I did that with mine. At 4GHz I got no improvement in games at all over my current 3.8 GHz but had to really crank on the voltage. So I bumped it down to 3.8 which is where the gains stopped and was able to use a fairly lower Vcore to spare the life of my trusty ASRock motherboard as it was never built with 6 core procs in mind.
 
I got a Vertex 3 SSD so I'm set for speed. I have not noticed a difference in encoding video, audio, games, surfing, or yet anything other then benchmark programs. I'm leaving it at 4ghz now. The CPU fan doesn't spin up hardly at all anymore and my room can stay a few degrees cooler and my electric bill will be a wee bit smaller too. :)
 
Apart from benchmarks, I really doubt you'd be able to notice the difference. A 4GHz 2500k is still gonna fly through everything. If you're running some uber multi GPU setup you might be losing some frames, but honestly, at that point you're talking about the difference between "extremely high fps" and "needlessly high fps". You aren't gonna notice it.
 
I would say that unless you are pushing the chip to around 4.5 GHz (or you are mostly encoding videos or some other constant multithreaded load), I would not overclock at all. Turbo Boost will already clock your processor to 3.6 GHz for a dual-core load.

If people are saying you won't notice the difference between 4.0 and 4.5, are you sure there's a difference between Turbo (3.6/3.7 in normal desktop use) and 4.0?
 
I've always been an overclocker. But this is the first chip I've had since overclocking that almost sees no improvement in speed for any program I use. Looks like the cpu bottleneck is completely gone with this proc. Even when I had my Core I7 920 at stock speeds my games were bottlenecked. Didn't break the bottleneck until 3.6ghz. This processor is 20% faster clock for clock out of the box at the same speed, and comes stock with turbo at 3.8 ghz. It just amazes me that people are still dropping hundreds of dollars to watercool their sandybridge so they can achieve 5.0 ghz when it does them no good other then bragging rights lol.
 
hdgamer said:
I've always been an overclocker. But this is the first chip I've had since overclocking that almost sees no improvement in speed for any program I use. Looks like the cpu bottleneck is completely gone with this proc. Even when I had my Core I7 920 at stock speeds my games were bottlenecked. Didn't break the bottleneck until 3.6ghz. This processor is 20% faster clock for clock out of the box at the same speed, and comes stock with turbo at 3.8 ghz. It just amazes me that people are still dropping hundreds of dollars to watercool their sandybridge so they can achieve 5.0 ghz when it does them no good other then bragging rights lol.
Click to expand...

I think the main reason to watercool from what I've seen IS

1st. To actually lower temps in your room.
2. Then an overclock on the system.
3. It looks 10x cooler than most air cooled rigs.
4. Bragging rights?

Heck I love my Triple Core @ 3.960Ghz for gaming. :) Also it idles @ 25-28 degrees and loads max @ 40-45 with a GPU under it that can crank out 90 degrees. It's awesome in the summer. And you can't do that on an Intel CPU @ 4Ghz with air cooling. But oh god the benchmarks of an Intel @ 4+. :rolleyes: lmao!
 
teletran8 said:
1st. To actually lower temps in your room.
Click to expand...

That's not going to change. No matter how you dissipate heat, be it by a heatsink or radiator, you are still dissipating the same amount of heat, except that water can dissipate a LOT more heat, which is why you see lower temperatures - it gets rid of heat faster.
 
teletran8 said:
And you can't do that on an Intel CPU @ 4Ghz with air cooling. But oh god the benchmarks of an Intel @ 4+. :rolleyes: lmao!
Click to expand...


I think a Sandy Bridge cpu at 4GHz will have lower temps than your cpu as described, even with air cooling. The cpu uses less energy
 
teletran8 said:
1st. To actually lower temps in your room.
Click to expand...
Teletran8 needs a software update to understand basic laws of physics.

Ironhide is very dissappointed.
medium_transformers_facepalm-300x227.jpg
 
teletran8 said:
Heck I love my Triple Core @ 3.960Ghz for gaming. :) Also it idles @ 25-28 degrees and loads max @ 40-45 with a GPU under it that can crank out 90 degrees. It's awesome in the summer. And you can't do that on an Intel CPU @ 4Ghz with air cooling. But oh god the benchmarks of an Intel @ 4+. :rolleyes: lmao!
Click to expand...

Ahh, of course on air you aren't going to be able to get the CPU temperature close to ambient, but it'll still be very cool by CPU standards - the chip has a TCASE of 72.6 and TJUNCTION of 100C. That's usually mobo and CPU reported temperatures respectively - you can easily push 4.5GHz on air, if not more.
 
I'll be honest here

I have a 2600K that plays well at over 5GHz

I run it at stock + turbo now because I have no need for the extra power.

If you have a monster high res / multi-monitor rig then go for it. I play on a single 1080p screen and I don't encode, and the difference between 5GHz and 3.4 + turbo is too little to justify the extra power, heat, and damage to the chip.
 
SonicTron said:
I'll be honest here

I have a 2600K that plays well at over 5GHz

I run it at stock + turbo now because I have no need for the extra power.

If you have a monster high res / multi-monitor rig then go for it. I play on a single 1080p screen and I don't encode, and the difference between 5GHz and 3.4 + turbo is too little to justify the extra power, heat, and damage to the chip.
Click to expand...

I understand all your points except damaging part. There is no evidence running a 32nm chip gets damaged from oc. That is all just speculation.
 
tangoseal said:
I understand all your points except damaging part. There is no evidence running a 32nm chip gets damaged from oc. That is all just speculation.
Click to expand...

There's been enough talk that running high voltage (necessary to achieve most of the 5ghz+ speeds) is killing these chips. 1.5v on SB has been a big no-no from what I've seen, and that's what it took for my chip.
 
SonicTron said:
There's been enough talk that running high voltage (necessary to achieve most of the 5ghz+ speeds) is killing these chips. 1.5v on SB has been a big no-no from what I've seen, and that's what it took for my chip.
Click to expand...

Yeah 5.0ghz. Were not talking extreme. Were just talking moderate like 4.5ghz.

But hey its someones property. They can do what they want. Honestly according to several sites the GPU bottleneck is defeated at 4.0 ghz with these quad cores SBD chips.

4.0+++ is just whatever you want to do with your chip.

Oh and Im watercooled so it probably isnt damaging my chip at all since it runs very cool.
 
tangoseal said:
Yeah 5.0ghz. Were not talking extreme. Were just talking moderate like 4.5ghz.

But hey its someones property. They can do what they want. Honestly according to several sites the GPU bottleneck is defeated at 4.0 ghz with these quad cores SBD chips.

4.0+++ is just whatever you want to do with your chip.

Oh and Im watercooled so it probably isnt damaging my chip at all since it runs very cool.
Click to expand...

It's not the temperature, it's the voltage that's the issue.
 
4Ghz + = faster F@h!

As said above, you could make your chip run @ 6Ghz with a low temp.. but if you put too much voltage into it... say good bye.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top