• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Is OC really worth for gaming?

B

blueled

n00b
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
22
Hi everyone, I'm sure this question has been asked a few times but I haven't found anything.

A few days I made my actual first overclock, because I never liked the idea of over overclocking stuff.

The thing is that I haven't noticed an increase in performance actually, I went from stock 3,4 to 4,5 GHz on my 2600K, it's perfectly tested and pretty stable, but high demanding games like StarCraft 2 and Crysis 2 dx11 all maxed runs the same, maybe just 2 frames better. I couldn't say recording in Fraps (to a second drive) has improved either.

GPU is a 6970 2GB.

I'm a little worried about power consumption and cpu life, and if it's just the performance I should expect I might just revert it to stock speed...

Is it normal? Thanks!
 
I personally don't overclock anymore because I'm my own worst enemy. I spend more time trying to push the overclock instead of playing a game.

For me I found the improved performance not to be worth the effort for me. So its not worth it for me to overclock anymore. But that doesn't mean its not worth for someone else.
 
overclocking shouldnt decrease the life of your cpu unless you really push it to the max. it also wont help you a ton unless youre maxing out your processor already, which youre not. right now you have a top of the line processor, so yuo dont need to overclock. maybe in a year or two you might find that it makes a difference once youre actually cpu-limited in some tasks/games. for example, people who had Q6600s, for example, got a 50% overclock on their cpus and used them for 3 or 4 years. some still game on them today. stock it probably wouldnt keep up. the increase in your power bill should be minimal, maybe a few bucks a month, but if youre not using your cpu enough to need the OC, then you might as well take it back to stock.
 
Depends on what you do. I like to play emulators on my computer, so overclocking really does help improve performance, since emulators are mostly CPU bound. However, the games you're playing are more limited by your GPU than your CPU. Once you start becoming CPU limited rather than GPU limited then CPU overclocking helps. Right now, you would see more benefits from GPU overclocking.
 
Tsumi said:
Depends on what you do. I like to play emulators on my computer, so overclocking really does help improve performance, since emulators are mostly CPU bound. However, the games you're playing are more limited by your GPU than your CPU. Once you start becoming CPU limited rather than GPU limited then CPU overclocking helps. Right now, you would see more benefits from GPU overclocking.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Its always fun to OC, to get the best you can out of it, but for gaming GPU is really all that matters, unless you play Supreme Comander or something.
 
Part of the reason I OC is because of the experience. Same reason I purchase piece parts and build my own systems. I also feel that the OC does not appreciably decrease the lifespan of my components because i do not go ridiculous with my overclocks. Even if it does, the lifespan may go from ten years to seven. I assume I will be upgrading because of the hobby or performance long before the components give out. The performance is just a bonus.
 
Do you really need milk with chocolate chip cookies? No, but it definitely makes the cookies much more enjoyable. :D
 
I myself have just tried OC on my AMD Phenom II 1100T, I'm going to run 3DMark Vantage and see if the performance increases, so I'll post my results here when I have...If I don't see no particular benefit in games I'll be reverting it back to stock.
 
OCing is nice if you want to get some nice bench scores. I've got my 2600K to 5GHz so far.

But just remember this.. Don't OC if you can't afford to replace it.
 
You aren't seeing an increase in performance because your cpu (and gpu) are already overkill for most games available at 1080p. But OCs are definitely useful for gaming, just not always immediately; down the road you'll still be able to run with the new stuff.
 
I feel quite noticable diffrence after switching X6 from 3,8 to stock speeds.
 
If you already have a great CPU, overclocking doesnt do much for most games. Unless of course the game is heavily CPU bound, but mostly only thing it does is give a slight bump to minimum FPS.
Overclocking videocard gives more noticeable performance gainin my experience. Still, OC:ing already good components is more like obsession, wanting to squeeze out every piece of performance you can get out of it. And I like it! :)

Emulators are a different story. You need every little ounce of raw CPU power you can get and overclocking can make a HUGE difference. And that still might not be enough.
 
well my i7 920 at stock bottlenecks my 6970 sooooo yeah overclocking to 3.6ghz removes that problem.
 
MaZa said:
If you already have a great CPU, overclocking doesnt do much for most games. Unless of course the game is heavily CPU bound, but mostly only thing it does is give a slight bump to minimum FPS.
Overclocking videocard gives more noticeable performance gainin my experience. Still, OC:ing already good components is more like obsession, wanting to squeeze out every piece of performance you can get out of it. And I like it! :)

Emulators are a different story. You need every little ounce of raw CPU power you can get and overclocking can make a HUGE difference. And that still might not be enough.
Click to expand...

Ain't that the truth. A large factor in me going from a Phenom II x6 @ 3.8 to a i7 920 @ 4.2 is because emulators (specifically Dolphin playing Super Smash Bros Brawl) are extremely CPU dependent, and not always multi-threaded.
 
Here are the results as promised:

Standard Speed at 3.3Ghz
33.jpg


Overclocked to 3.8Ghz
38.jpg


Using 3D Mark Vantage

No real difference in FPS?!
 
Hey guys, thanks for your replies.

Well, conclusion I draw is current games won't use efficiently the hardware, so more speed won't necessary make a difference, and I don't think this CPU will bottleneck the GPU.

Anyway, I don't know why I still can't go past 40 fps, with low peaks of 20 fps in Starctaft II or Crysis 2, all maxed at 1920x1080, maybe games are simply poorly optimized or drivers need more work, is this the performance witch I have lo live with?

By the moment I just saved my OC profile, new Asus' UEFIs are great, and went back to stock speed.
 
blueled said:
Hi everyone, I'm sure this question has been asked a few times but I haven't found anything.

A few days I made my actual first overclock, because I never liked the idea of over overclocking stuff.

The thing is that I haven't noticed an increase in performance actually, I went from stock 3,4 to 4,5 GHz on my 2600K, it's perfectly tested and pretty stable, but high demanding games like StarCraft 2 and Crysis 2 dx11 all maxed runs the same, maybe just 2 frames better. I couldn't say recording in Fraps (to a second drive) has improved either.

GPU is a 6970 2GB.

I'm a little worried about power consumption and cpu life, and if it's just the performance I should expect I might just revert it to stock speed...

Is it normal? Thanks!
Click to expand...

You can see large gains overclocking but only in very specific circumstances. Such as when multimonitor / high resolution setups are concerned. Especially when multiple GPUs are used. In the HardOCP Test there was a big difference between a Core i7 920 @ 3.6GHz and a Core i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz. This was when SLI'ed GTX 580's and multiple monitors / high resolution was used.
 
eh, a mild overclock is fine. Say 3,8 to 4.0. A more extreme overclock might cause stability issues, now or in the future. fine if you don't mind the hassle. many of the newer games can utilize mulitcore processors. From that perspective say you are talking about 16GHz bandwidth vs 18GHz. If the game cannot fully utilize the 16GHz (4x4GHz) then the 18GHz (4x4.5GHz) will never help and it might hurt. Crappy single threaded apps, it can help them,
 
blueled said:
Hey guys, thanks for your replies.

Well, conclusion I draw is current games won't use efficiently the hardware, so more speed won't necessary make a difference, and I don't think this CPU will bottleneck the GPU.

Anyway, I don't know why I still can't go past 40 fps, with low peaks of 20 fps in Starctaft II or Crysis 2, all maxed at 1920x1080, maybe games are simply poorly optimized or drivers need more work, is this the performance witch I have lo live with?

By the moment I just saved my OC profile, new Asus' UEFIs are great, and went back to stock speed.
Click to expand...

Not sure why your getting poor performance, I for one play starcraft at that resolution with everything maxed out and I don't get any kind of performance problems? Perhaps there is something else causing your performance issues?
 
Like some have said, games are usually GPU dependant, not CPU. You'll notice differences in something like StarCraft II or Civilization V, less so in Crysis 2, for example.

Adding 5-10 FPS via CPU/GPU OCing is free performance, I don't know why you wouldn't want to do it, assuming your temps are OK.
 
OC on video cards is worth it as long as they aren't getting too hot (keep it under 75C for load). CPU is okay I guess, but you'd notice a bigger difference with a faster GPU unless your CPU is god awful.
 
the_cheeky_badger said:
Not sure why your getting poor performance, I for one play starcraft at that resolution with everything maxed out and I don't get any kind of performance problems? Perhaps there is something else causing your performance issues?
Click to expand...

What do you think it could be?
 
blueled said:
Hey guys, thanks for your replies.

Well, conclusion I draw is current games won't use efficiently the hardware, so more speed won't necessary make a difference, and I don't think this CPU will bottleneck the GPU.

Anyway, I don't know why I still can't go past 40 fps, with low peaks of 20 fps in Starctaft II or Crysis 2, all maxed at 1920x1080, maybe games are simply poorly optimized or drivers need more work, is this the performance witch I have lo live with?

By the moment I just saved my OC profile, new Asus' UEFIs are great, and went back to stock speed.
Click to expand...

You have a pretty rockin system, and since everything works without crashing or artifacting (providing it does), it's probably something software-wise. Maybe check your processes? See if there is something that is taking focus or something. Might be a good idea to download "process explorer" and check your stuff both in normal boot and safe mode. If you aren't familiar with process explorer, it's like task manager on crack.

Otherwise, perhaps you should blow away your drivers and reinstall. Worse comes to worse, reinstalling Windows will probably do it.

I get crazy framerates in stuff like Starcraft 2 and other modern games, and I'm working with a considerably lower system, including an i5-750 at 3.8ghz, 8gb Gskill DDR3 1600, and a Radeon 6870.

I'd have to say it's software or drivers, because the hardware you are working with should be giving you more.
 
I don't see a reason NOT to do at least a moderate overclock at either stock voltage or slightly bumped voltage.

For an i7 2600K, this would probably put you at 4Ghz+, comfortably. I actually keep my i7 950 at around 4Ghz at a stockish voltage.

My reason for not going higher is simply that it produces significantly more heat after that point.

I contend that there is a (somewhat subjective, I admit) performance/power sweet-zone that should be exploited to the fullest.

For my CPU and cooling, that zone is 3.8-4.0 Ghz. For your CPU, that zone is probably several hundred Mhz higher.

I could also understand under-volting slightly at maybe 3.8Ghz. My non-golden i7 950 CPU can run 3.8Ghz at below stock voltage, so I'm quite certain yours can as well.

I envy the power efficiency of SB CPUs.
 
I have a MacBookPro (4,1 2008) and I run Windows XP with vmware. My friend gave me a copy of Street Fighter 4 but I can't get it to work properly. The intro loads alright, but then the screen goes black when I press start. Is my processor too weak (2.5 ghz, Intel Core 2 Duo)? I also have the ram maxed out, 4gb. Would over clocking make the game work? Does OC exist for macbook pros?
 
There may probably be a way to overclock, but doing that on a laptop is just asking for it.

Now where's that article where one of Intel's engineers was bashing Apple about being 'design first, everything else (including proper cooling solutions) follow'?
 
savvyninja said:
I have a MacBookPro (4,1 2008) and I run Windows XP with vmware. My friend gave me a copy of Street Fighter 4 but I can't get it to work properly. The intro loads alright, but then the screen goes black when I press start. Is my processor too weak (2.5 ghz, Intel Core 2 Duo)? I also have the ram maxed out, 4gb. Would over clocking make the game work? Does OC exist for macbook pros?
Click to expand...

Virtual machines afaik don't like 3D stuff (or at least i never managed to get this part working normally) so that's probably what causes problems for you.

If you had dual boot Mac OS/Win Xp it would probably run normally as if we speaking about those models:
http://support.apple.com/kb/sp4
they have reasonable GPU inside (GF 8600)
 
An overclock on my old i7 860 made a night and day difference in Serious Sam HD and Darkplaces. It also helped quite a bit in Fallout New Vegas. I wouldn't be playing that in 3d without an overclock on my cpu.

I'll be honest I never overclock my graphics cards. The difference is never all that big.
 
Last edited:
going from stock 3.0ghz on my Q9650 to 4.2ghz brought my min fps in BC2 from 50fps to 80fps. Average is 120fps now.
 
the_cheeky_badger said:
Here are the results as promised:

Standard Speed at 3.3Ghz
Image snip..................

Overclocked to 3.8Ghz
Image snip..................

Using 3D Mark Vantage

No real difference in FPS?!
Click to expand...

3D Mark should never be referenced for anything. It's about as relevant to gaming performance as toilet paper is. 3D Mark is a set of arbitrary numbers which in no way translate to gaming performance. Worse yet the variables that influence it are NOT the same variables (and certainly not to the same degree) that influence actual gaming performance.
 
Dan_D said:
3D Mark should never be referenced for anything. It's about as relevant to gaming performance as toilet paper is. 3D Mark is a set of arbitrary numbers which in no way translate to gaming performance. Worse yet the variables that influence it are NOT the same variables (and certainly not to the same degree) that influence actual gaming performance.
Click to expand...

Thank you, my eyes glaze over as soon as I see someone post a 3d mark score. Its just meaningless to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top