Anti-Overclocker's thoughts

[eurin]

Hah. I've got 25% increase in speed out of my new Opteron 170. Stock voltages, and it only runs 3-4 C warmer (which is already damn low being an Opteron). I seriously doubt I'll lose any signifant lifetime, yet alone use it long enough to find out.

 

[ThreeDee]

I feel the only real advantage to overclocking is that it makes the overclocker'r feel more important and cool .. the overclocker'r has a higher social status then the non-overclocker'r and tends to be a virutal magnet drawing in hordes of members of the opposite sex to their beckon calling .. the overclocker'r also has a brighter twinkle in their eyes and their notstrils tend to flare more then the non-overclocker'r ..

so ..lets recap some real world advantages of overclocking shall we ...

-Feel better about themselves
-Higher social status
-Chick (or dude) magnet
-Looks insane

..now right there is reason enough to overclock and that's why I do it and recommend all my family members and my one friend to do it...!

 

[Asmodeus]

no, the need to overclock is essentially to get something for nothing... what is essentially happening you are taking a rated piece of hardware and cranking it beyond it's specs and keeping those specs stable and usable... now, all of the other bullshit that goes with it that you mentioned is simply consequence of the base action...

so let's recap the real world reason to overclock:

FASTER SPEED FROM BASELINE/STOCK PARTS!!!

I feel the only real advantage to overclocking is that it makes the overclocker'r feel more important and cool .. the overclocker'r has a higher social status then the non-overclocker'r and tends to be a virutal magnet drawing in hordes of members of the opposite sex to their beckon calling .. the overclocker'r also has a brighter twinkle in their eyes and their notstrils tend to flare more then the non-overclocker'r ..

so ..lets recap some real world advantages of overclocking shall we ...

-Feel better about themselves
-Higher social status
-Chick (or dude) magnet
-Looks insane

..now right there is reason enough to overclock and that's why I do it and recommend all my family members and my one friend to do it...!

 

[superkdogg]

I feel the only real advantage to overclocking is that it makes the overclocker'r feel more important and cool .. the overclocker'r has a higher social status then the non-overclocker'r and tends to be a virutal magnet drawing in hordes of members of the opposite sex to their beckon calling .. the overclocker'r also has a brighter twinkle in their eyes and their notstrils tend to flare more then the non-overclocker'r ..

so ..lets recap some real world advantages of overclocking shall we ...

-Feel better about themselves
-Higher social status
-Chick (or dude) magnet
-Looks insane

..now right there is reason enough to overclock and that's why I do it and recommend all my family members and my one friend to do it...!

Dude, I think that you're being sarcastic, but I can't really tell.

Once and for all, the value of overclocking simply can't be denied. I'm not a king OC'er, as I do it on a budget and without luxuries such as H2O, phase change, and all the other stuff that really puts it over the top. However by selecting good parts, here's some of my recent history:

T-Bred B 1400 to 2200 MHz
Mobile Northwood 1200 to 2400 MHz
Celeron D 2400 to 3600 MHz
A64 Winchester 1800 to 2700 MHz

x800GTO2 to x850xt-pe + some speed on core and mem

Anyone who cares to tell me that there is no value in overclocking should then try to explain to me why there is a difference in price between high-end and low-end parts. If there is no value in taking a bottom level part and making it perform like a top shelf part, then maybe I need a lesson in this "fuzzy economics" that you must be practicing.

Also, the lifespan argument is irrelevant. Nobody wants a CPU to last 10 years, let alone longer. For god's sake, that just makes for more junk that you can't even sell at a garage sale! So even if overclocking shortens the lifespan of a CPU by 75% (which it doesn't) that is fine because after 5 years maximum, the CPU has become archaic and is no longer adequately useful to justify wasting electricity on it. End of story.

 

[eurin]

If there is no value in taking a bottom level part and making it perform like a top shelf part, then maybe I need a lesson in this "fuzzy economics" that you must be practicing.

I'm pro overclocking, but the "fuzzy economics" would be time = money .

Though I have to admit, my overclock was easy as hell, but I haven't taken the time to push it further to find it's reasonable limit.

 

[superkdogg]

Time=money only when the assumption is made that one who is overclocking would instead be earning money. Time spent walking the dog and downloading pR0n are not equal to money, so this argument has limited use in reality.


I'd rather overclock than work anyway!

(ntm, like you said-most overclocks nowadays are easy as hell and one or two runs through bios yield quite a performance increase)

 

[Bona Fide]

I feel the only real advantage to overclocking is that it makes the overclocker'r feel more important and cool .. the overclocker'r has a higher social status then the non-overclocker'r and tends to be a virutal magnet drawing in hordes of members of the opposite sex to their beckon calling .. the overclocker'r also has a brighter twinkle in their eyes and their notstrils tend to flare more then the non-overclocker'r ..

so ..lets recap some real world advantages of overclocking shall we ...

-Feel better about themselves
-Higher social status
-Chick (or dude) magnet
-Looks insane

..now right there is reason enough to overclock and that's why I do it and recommend all my family members and my one friend to do it...!

I do hope you're joking.

 

[wrangler]

So I guess when I spent $400, and ended up getting $1100 dollars worth of performance I was spinning my wheels. Stop buying those FX60's boys, the I/O won't handle the extra speed. GMAFB Actually they don't even make an AMD dual core at 2.8 yet so.......

Oh, if I add in what it would have cost me to equal the entertainment/personal enjoyment/feeling of self satisfaction, the value is off the charts.

 

[ThreeDee]

jeez ..I didnt realize I was part of such a sensitive lot ..lol

I am an avid overclocker'r (yes that is a word ..but only when I use it)

I'd overclock my floppy drive if I knew how



[F]old[H]ard
(no stats with this post)

 

[Lastblade]

jeez ..I didnt realize I was part of such a sensitive lot ..lol

I am an avid overclocker'r (yes that is a word ..but only when I use it)

I'd overclock my floppy drive if I knew how



[F]old[H]ard
(no stats with this post)

Hehe, I am going to overclock my dog now.... wait, on second thought, I don't need him pooping and peeing more. I am going to underclock him.

 

[Dan_D]

Overclocking = Faster CPU = Better performance. Always.

This says it best.

 

[Firebat]

Hehe, I am going to overclock my dog now.... wait, on second thought, I don't need him pooping and peeing more. I am going to underclock him.

This says it best.

 

[0zymandias]

"This says it best."

^ This says it best.

 

[Catweazle]

Once and for all, the value of overclocking simply can't be denied. I'm not a king OC'er, as I do it on a budget and without luxuries such as H2O, phase change, and all the other stuff that really puts it over the top. However by selecting good parts, here's some of my recent history:

T-Bred B 1400 to 2200 MHz
Mobile Northwood 1200 to 2400 MHz
Celeron D 2400 to 3600 MHz
A64 Winchester 1800 to 2700 MHz

x800GTO2 to x850xt-pe + some speed on core and mem

Anyone who cares to tell me that there is no value in overclocking should then try to explain to me why there is a difference in price between high-end and low-end parts. If there is no value in taking a bottom level part and making it perform like a top shelf part, then maybe I need a lesson in this "fuzzy economics" that you must be practicing.

Also, the lifespan argument is irrelevant. Nobody wants a CPU to last 10 years, let alone longer. For god's sake, that just makes for more junk that you can't even sell at a garage sale! So even if overclocking shortens the lifespan of a CPU by 75% (which it doesn't) that is fine because after 5 years maximum, the CPU has become archaic and is no longer adequately useful to justify wasting electricity on it. End of story.

I'd agree with most of that but I'd still feel the "why" of it is a little more convoluted than you suggest. The 'get something for nothing' approach isn't quite so cut and dried.

Yes, I adopt a similar approach myself, and have saved hundreds of dollars on processor purchases by doing so. But my system turnover time is a relatively short one, just like yours appears to be. For the person who actually needs the system to last the 5 year span the situation can be different, and overclocking not necessarily the best approach. I just don't accept the "it's gonna last 5 years anyway" belief as an inevitability.

Whilst those old Celerons might keep on running year after year the picture can be different with newer chips. A lot of people with 'dream' chips like the 2.4C or the XP2500+, who have got a couple of years down the track and then found that they can't really meet the cost of another system upgrade, have found that things start going a bit 'funny' on them. The overclock just doesn't run stable like it used to, perhaps. The temps just won't stay down where they were before, despite fitting an aftermarket heatsink. All of a sudden you gotta buggerise around setting the clock back when the days are a bit hotter......

It can happen even when you never upped the voltages, even.

If the turnover time is a couple of years or less then I'd agree that 'something for nothing' is a damn worthwhile approach. But when you gotta keep the system for longer than that it can get 'iffy' just when you really didn't need it to.

 

[superkdogg]

I have to disagree with you (respectfully of course).

A 3200+ and a 2500+ or a 2.4c and a 3.2c may well have come from the same wafer and be completely identical. For that reason, I submit that if you are able to make that OC work without increasing voltage, your system should have no greater likelihood of failure than buying the high-end part. This assumption ignores other possibilities such as motherboards, PSus and memory that cannot handle the overclock, but that's why it comes down to good component selection to begin with. This is no different than buying a system that won't be overclocked. The system is always only as good as its weakest part.

Once one starts raising voltages, all longevity bets are off. Things can happen to CPUs and other parts that will shorten lifespan significantly (current leakage, extra cap stress, etc). However, my line of thinking is that anybody who wants a 5 year old system would never be overclocking to begin with. Think about how long ago 5 years is in computer terms. You're talking high-end P3's with Williamette about to come along and save the day. You're just about ready for the Palomino core AthlonXP's and this newfangled "PR" thing. DDR is brand new, and the Geforce3 is an incredible leap forward in graphics performance. That's how long ago 5 years is.

I have a system based on an overclocked Palomino (those things oc'd like junk!) and it's still stable, but for god's sake it's also a dog compared to my more current parts. I could concevably use it, but instead it is sitting in my basement waiting to find its way to eBay.

That's why the longevity argument does not stand up.

 

[Catweazle]

superkdogg, I wasn't simply referring to chips which have had voltage increases done on them. I've seen quite a few that haven't, yet have still suffered problems a couple of years down the track. You just don't get any 'guarantee' that it's gonna last unless you increase the volts.

I'm not saying that it's an inevitability of overclocking, mind. I'm simply saying that "it's gonna last 5 years anyway" isn't necessarily true all the time. I'm in agreement that someone who needs the PC to last 5 years shouldn't be overclocking. That's the point of my post, actually.

 

[texuspete00]

The life expectancy of a stock run cpu is in the negihborhood of 16 years or so. Certainly not 5, and at least 10. You can beat on it for 8 months to a year, retire it to a "near stock" box (just limited overvolting) and it will likely be worth to you what a Ti-85 is down the road. Anything's a risk. No one cares though. I'm glad it's your "friend." Because this isn't the Anti-Overclocking forum.

 

[DarkSi]

The person making these statements is obviously

Some points are valid. The TRUE negatives to overclocking would be:

-reduced lifespan (don't think anyone's mentioned that )
-increased power consumption
-increased thermal output

Most people don't care about the lifespan.

Most people don't care about the power consumption, and everything has enough overhead to more than support the added power consumption.

We have PLENTY of ways to control the thermal output.

We all know the pros... And I don't feel like listing them out. But, for most of us, most of the time, they WAY outweigh the cons.

 

[snefan]

nice post DaLurker, u whopped his ass

 

[superkdogg]

superkdogg, I wasn't simply referring to chips which have had voltage increases done on them. I've seen quite a few that haven't, yet have still suffered problems a couple of years down the track. You just don't get any 'guarantee' that it's gonna last unless you increase the volts.

I'm not saying that it's an inevitability of overclocking, mind. I'm simply saying that "it's gonna last 5 years anyway" isn't necessarily true all the time. I'm in agreement that someone who needs the PC to last 5 years shouldn't be overclocking. That's the point of my post, actually.

I realize what you're saying. What I'm saying is that the difference between a 2500+ Barton and a 3200+ Barton is only what the box says it is, and the price. In theory, it is no more likely that a 2500+ would fail running at 3200+ speeds than it is a 3200+ would fail at those speeds. They come from the same wafers and are labelled and assigned multipliers based on demand for the different speeds-not because a 3200+ is actually faster.

 

[Catweazle]

They come from the same wafers and are labelled and assigned multipliers based on demand for the different speeds-not because a 3200+ is actually faster.

Not quite correct there, nor would such a claim be true for any other product line which uses (used) the same fabrication process for the entire line of product.

* The wafers are manufactured.
* The wafers are tested.
* The wafers are 'binned' according to quality and processors made from them in accordance with quality. Better testing wafers are used for higher rated chips.

That's the procedure. The wafers created in the production process are NOT all of identical capability and the PR ratings of the processor product line are NOT assigned purely owing to consumer demand.


It is true to claim that at times the procedure will be varied, and high consumer demand will lead to better wafers being used to produce lower rated processors. When that happens the consumer gets a 'bonus', and that's why we carefully consider what chips we buy, looking for ones which come from particular production runs which are known to have produced better performing chips. But it's simply not true to claim that ALL processors of a particular type are identical in capability to others which are sold with a higher rating.

Not every 2500+ chip was a good overclocker. Some of them were flat out to handle a 100MHz overclock even, which made them fall a LONG way short of 3200+ performance levels!

 

[Rhitick]

Only read first page...in a nut shell if you blow something up when OCing your either rich enough to replace it or bloody stupid.

Alot of components have thresholds...and if they exceed that threshold (heat or w/e) they stop working until you remedy it. I.E reset your BIOS.

Your pal with 15 years experience doesn't know what he's talking about.