Do I really need to go from 3.6-4.0?

mobusta1

2[H]4U
Joined
May 1, 2008
Messages
2,579
If my computer is mostly used for gaming will I see anything signifigant if I get my CPU 400 Mhz faster? What are the pro/cons to pushing my CPU this high (besides the extra heat)?
 

Technophobe

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 25, 2008
Messages
339
Even though its a 10%+ boost in CPU speed (3600 to 4000), you probably won't see the same % boost in the game. There are a lot of other factors to count in. I see an improvement in time it takes to load game etc. but not a huge amount in the actual game. Again, I suppose every game is different...

If you increase speed, you may reduce reliability etc. and possibly corrupt data etc.
 

Dangman

Ninja Editor SuperMod
Joined
Dec 15, 2005
Messages
46,062
If my computer is mostly used for gaming will I see anything signifigant if I get my CPU 400 Mhz faster?
Nope. Once you start gaming at above 1280x1024 or so, CPU clock speed does not matter than much. You will see zero increases from a 400Mhz increase in games. Read this article:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with-quad-core-processors/

Note the 2.4Ghz Q6600 and the 3Ghz E8400. In a majority of the games, they perform virtually the same.

Pro:
- Knowing that you have a 4GHz CPU

Con:
- Might require extra voltage past 1.4V to hit 4Ghz
- Has zero benefits with most games
 

mobusta1

2[H]4U
Joined
May 1, 2008
Messages
2,579
Thanks danny, I can always count on you to give a very informative answer. You rock bro :D
 

empower64

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 30, 2004
Messages
252
This is a really good question and i think it was well answered. I myself am faced with the idea of taking my q6600 to the much sought after 3.0-3.4 range but not sure what real world difference i would see, plus id have to buy a new case (cant fit even an ac pro 7 in my case), new cooler(non-stock) and go thru the hastle of putting it in the new case, regardless im at 2.7 just for kicks.....maybe i can do 3.0 with a stock cooler....
 

PliotronX

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 8, 2000
Messages
2,070
It depends on the app and how hardcore of a multiplayer you are. For example, I've heard with tons of players on screen in TF2, the higher speed helps even at high res. If you don't notice the extra speed, it's not worth the added heat output I'd say. It all comes down to your personal preferences and usage, resolution, detail settings, etc.. If you can hit 4GHz, try it out and see if you notice anything. No harm in it :)
 

Dangman

Ninja Editor SuperMod
Joined
Dec 15, 2005
Messages
46,062
This is a really good question and i think it was well answered. I myself am faced with the idea of taking my q6600 to the much sought after 3.0-3.4 range but not sure what real world difference i would see, plus id have to buy a new case (cant fit even an ac pro 7 in my case), new cooler(non-stock) and go thru the hastle of putting it in the new case, regardless im at 2.7 just for kicks.....maybe i can do 3.0 with a stock cooler....
I think your biggest worry should be that Apevia/Aspire PSU. Apevia/Aspire doesn't make good quality PSUs:
Apevia Warlock Power 900W
Aspire X-Qpack's Included 420W
Aspire Beast 680W Power Supply

I've personally had an Apevia/Aspire PSU kill six different hard drives over a period of 2 months.
 

silent-circuit

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 18, 2005
Messages
16,133
Apevia is the devil. Pure and simple. Also, as Danny has already explained, not much benefit above ~3Ghz at the moment, so unless it's just horribly important to you to have a 4Ghz CPU, don't worry about it. The extra voltage/heat and draw at the wall (it can be substantial) really makes it far from worthwhile for most of us.
 

empower64

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 30, 2004
Messages
252
ya i know apevia is a piece of shit for the most part but i was in a budget crunch and was building a budget rig to game/surf the web on and threw up the majority of my money on the proc instead of a decent case. whole system was just under 600 tax and all which was nice. psu came with the cause for 75...think ill just save up 200 and get a decent case (maxt silverstone tower) and a corsair 520 watt :)....brithday only 2 months away!
 

Dangman

Ninja Editor SuperMod
Joined
Dec 15, 2005
Messages
46,062
think ill just save up 200 and get a decent case (maxt silverstone tower) and a corsair 520 watt :)....brithday only 2 months away!
At $75 for a case and PSU, there were more than likely better choices out there.

Anyway, hope your system lasts that long with no permanent problems. My Apevia lasted only a month before it started killing hard drives left and right.

But as an FYI, your current system only needs this PSU:
Antec Earthwatts 500W PSU - $55
 

empower64

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 30, 2004
Messages
252
just put in an order for that...any ideas on a good mATX case that will fit a good cooler, or should i just go with a mid tower?
 

empower64

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 30, 2004
Messages
252
yea i was thinking the same, the extra space would just mean better cooling anyhow and be more future proof for upgrades. At a local frys they have the antec p180 silver for 69.99...should i pull the trigger?
 

haadij404

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 3, 2006
Messages
2,280
If you can get to 4GHZ with low temps, low voltage and stress tested then why not?

This is [H]ardForum, you must go as high as you can :D
 

Matthew Kane

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Messages
4,233
^ROFL......

Crysis will see some increase, as the game is more dependent on CPU then gaphics card!

Hitting the 4GHZ mark won't give you much or none at all improvements for todays modern new games!

Also.....going beyond 1.45v on a 45 nm cpu is not recommended.....it will kill it!
 

Zero82z

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
27,897
yea i was thinking the same, the extra space would just mean better cooling anyhow and be more future proof for upgrades. At a local frys they have the antec p180 silver for 69.99...should i pull the trigger?
$70 for a P180 is a pretty sweet price. However, I suggest you take a look at other cases that are out there before you pull the trigger in case you end up finding something else you prefer.
 

remmeh

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 2, 2008
Messages
339
Personally I do notice the extra framerates at 4ghz vs. 3.6ghz in a CPU-limited game, i.e. TF2. (>80fps with lots of action while zoomed in vs. dropping down to 45-50)

Unfortunately it's really hot here so I've clocked down to 3.6 for the time being...
 

Matthew Kane

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Messages
4,233
Remember cores is more important then raw clock speed. Adequate Cores and Clock = A happy pc without no doubt can run the latest things.

Inadequate Cores and more Clock = You won't able to run the latest, as the latest doesn't just benefit from raw speed, also the cores for multitasking ability!

I'd say its best you stick to 3.6 for a Dual, as games these days don't require any more then a 3GHZ C2D!
 

redbonefish

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 8, 2007
Messages
187
since this is on topic i have a question about the same thing

i am right now having a problem with getting my q6600 past 3.0ghz

if i went from 3.0 to 3.2ghz would i really notice a difference considering i play at higher resolutions?
 

imzjustplayin

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,171
I've generally found that overclocking a processor when it's from the same generation as the GPU is a wasted effort unless you have a small screen. Though if upgrade your video card and keep your system, then you're far more likely to see a boost in performance through CPU overclocking because now the CPU is older than the GPU and the GPU needs more data that the CPU simply cannot feed depending on the circumstances.

Here is an example:

Pentium 4 2.8ghz, Radeon 9800 pro, CPU overclocking, mostly no real performance boost, overclock GPU, nearly a linear performance boost.

Pentium 4 2.8ghz, 6800GT, CPU overclocking, noticeable performance boost, overclock GPU may or may not see a linear performance boost.

Pentium 4 2.8ghz, 7800GT, CPU overclocking, major performance boost in all circumstances, overclock GPU, depending on how CPU bound you are, probably won't see much of a performance boost.
 

SirKronan

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Messages
4,613
Hitting 4.0GHz on my Q6700 Took 1.7v. :eek:

But it did it. Windows Vista stable. I could even run a couple of threads of Prime just fine. But I got scared after a while and shut it off ... you know, the whole "fry your processor" risk thingy. Now I'm happily at 3.6GHz on 1.49v. 100% 24/7 stable. Temps never pass 62c, but I've got a full tower case with three 120's for intake, 2 120's $ 2 60's for exhaust, oh yeah and the TRUE with a 120mm 121cfm fan. The true has really helped me push my processor hard.

I had good results with the Freezer 7 Pro on this processor too. 3.6GHz, but with scary temps.

Supreme commander is a game I play a lot, and having a quad at 3.6GHz makes it fly. The game is noticeably smoother at 3.6 than it is at 3.0.
 

Matthew Kane

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Messages
4,233
It really seems that their is still benefit for 3ghz to 3.6ghz and 4ghz, just depends on the game you play I guess!

But 1.7v is a bit scary:eek: What temps were you getting for that?
 

SirKronan

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Messages
4,613
It really seems that their is still benefit for 3ghz to 3.6ghz and 4ghz, just depends on the game you play I guess!

But 1.7v is a bit scary:eek: What temps were you getting for that?
It was in the low 70's with two worker threads going in Prime95. I wasn't brave enough to push it any harder at those voltages. But Vista was perfectly stable with this processor at 4.0GHz. I just don't want to fry my trusty processor. It sure has been good to me!
 

Matthew Kane

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Messages
4,233
Low 70's is alot...as 65'C is highest ceiling for any overclock.....low 70's is dodgy.....
 

vengence

Level capped
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
18,471
To the OP, I did notice when I went from 3.0 to 4.0 on my E8400 that CoD4, more specifically heavy smoke scenes only - showed a proportional increase in frame rate. However, I did alter my ram timings (tightned) and speeds (higher) when I did that. However, it should be noted, when I say increased it was from 70 fps to 90-100 fps in a situationally controlled enviroment. (empty server, multiplayer, max settings, staring at the smoking tanks on that one mission who's name escapes me) I won't say it won't do anything. It isn't going to do more than 10% increase in fps which would be hard to notice. I'd also say in most situations won't be worth it, but just FYI in general on my experiances.
 

GregP24

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
1,860
Nope. Once you start gaming at above 1280x1024 or so, CPU clock speed does not matter than much. You will see zero increases from a 400Mhz increase in games. Read this article:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with-quad-core-processors/

Note the 2.4Ghz Q6600 and the 3Ghz E8400. In a majority of the games, they perform virtually the same.

Pro:
- Knowing that you have a 4GHz CPU

Con:
- Might require extra voltage past 1.4V to hit 4Ghz
- Has zero benefits with most games

I agree. I have downclocked my system to 3ghz from the 3.4 I was runing it at. I have noticed no difference in performance at all. In fact, I see no noticable difference going to 3 or 3.4ghz from the stock 2.6.
 

Matthew Kane

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Messages
4,233
Temperatures in the 70s are perfectly safe for these CPUs.
I wouldn't recommend that..and I don;t think so, because as soon as the ambient and room temperatures increase, it will no longer be low 70's. It will be boiling and unstable.
 

Riccochet

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
23,773
I wouldn't recommend that..and I don;t think so, because as soon as the ambient and room temperatures increase, it will no longer be low 70's. It will be boiling and unstable.
Not recommended by you is one thing, but according to Intel 100c is max for the chip. Stability should be constant through it's working temperature range. I've seen Q6600's in the mid 80's with no ill effects. Some OEM systems with Q6600's run stock in the 80's due to lack of airflow in the case, and they run perfectly fine.

IMO stability with overclocking is in the eye of the beholder. If a Q6600 system is unstable while hitting 70c+ I doubt it's due to temperature, more like lack of voltage and the unwillingness of the user to push the chip harder, which is understandable considering the cost of investment.
 

vengence

Level capped
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
18,471
Not recommended by you is one thing, but according to Intel 100c is max for the chip. Stability should be constant through it's working temperature range. I've seen Q6600's in the mid 80's with no ill effects. Some OEM systems with Q6600's run stock in the 80's due to lack of airflow in the case, and they run perfectly fine.

IMO stability with overclocking is in the eye of the beholder. If a Q6600 system is unstable while hitting 70c+ I doubt it's due to temperature, more like lack of voltage and the unwillingness of the user to push the chip harder, which is understandable considering the cost of investment.
To be honest I've been thinking about pushing my E8400 harder "just for the hell of it". I'm wondering how high I could get it stable to. However I'm at the edge of "conventionally safe" as I'm pushing 1.35Volts at the CPU (telling the mobo to put more but Vdroop). But it is a 170$ screwup if I decide to make a serious push to 4.5 and don't make it.
 

Zero82z

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
27,897
I wouldn't recommend that..and I don;t think so, because as soon as the ambient and room temperatures increase, it will no longer be low 70's. It will be boiling and unstable.
That doesn't even make any sense. The fact is that these CPUs are designed to operate at temperatures much higher than 70C, hence why Tjmax is around 100C for most Intel CPUs.
 

kohan69

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Messages
2,526
It took you more time to start and read this thread than to reach your maximum overclock.
 

SirKronan

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Messages
4,613
70c still scares me. And isn't 1.7v dangerously high? Don't you get some kind of voltage migration or something like that that can slowly fry your chip? By slowly I might cutting its lifespan from years to a few weeks?
 

Zero82z

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
27,897
And isn't 1.7v dangerously high? Don't you get some kind of voltage migration or something like that that can slowly fry your chip? By slowly I might cutting its lifespan from years to a few weeks?
Yes. 1.7v on a 65nm Core 2 without some form of water or sub-zero cooling is definitely not a good idea for continuous operation.
 

SirKronan

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Messages
4,613
Yes. 1.7v on a 65nm Core 2 without some form of water or sub-zero cooling is definitely not a good idea for continuous operation.
Even if I water cool, isn't that still bad? Say I put an uber watercooling system that keeps it at below 50c even at highest 4 core load ... doesn't just the sheer amount of voltage possibly damage the chip?
 

Zero82z

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
27,897
Yeah, probably. I wouldn't do it under any circumstances to be honest, unless it was a disposable chip.
 
Top