OCing CPU >>> how much difference does it make in gaming?

E

Eagle156

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 21, 2006
Messages
2,242
How much of an fps increase are we talking about if say, an e6600 is oced from 2.4 to 3.0, or 3.2? Does it make any difference at all in games?
 
Some people are so lazy.

If you want to know the difference between a Core 2 at 2.4GHz, and a Core 2 at 3GHz then look a goddamn review of the E6850 and the E6600.
 
Assuming you are running the rig in your sig, you should be able to test that out for yourself, as well as decide if the temps/volts make it worth it.
 
holli4pirating said:
Assuming you are running the rig in your sig, you should be able to test that out for yourself, as well as decide if the temps/volts make it worth it.
Click to expand...

No, mine barely OCs over 2.6ghz which isn't enough to make any difference. I'm guessing it's the ram.
 
Well I have an E6600 clocked at 3.6Ghz and I have to say that there is a BIG
difference but I also run an FSB of 450Mhz with a multi of 8 (all on water cooling).


Now coming to gaming the higher the resolution and detailas the sooner you become GPU limited rather than CPU limited and then again it depends on the game too. Some games benefit more from a faster cpu.

At the end of the day 3.2 or 3.4 or 3.6 is going to be faster in every situation compared to a 2.4Ghz Core2 Duo. So if you can o/c do it without second thought,

For more info check out any reviews of CPUs and you will see how they scale.
 
The only real difference you will see gaming will be in processor hungry games such as RTS games. Supreme Commander is an excellent example of this. I read an article awhile back discussing clockspeeds and number of cores as related to gaming.

One of the games tested was Supreme Commander in which high clockspeeds and quad core made a noticeable difference. However almost every other game (mostly FPS style) that was tested had negligible differences when it came to cores and overclocking. The truth is most games nowadays are about 95% GPU/RAM driven. Hell, I can play BF2142 at max settings on my old athlon with a 7950GT and i get great framerates.
 
source games. i got like a 20 frame increase in stress test running stock and 3ghz on my e6300. but of course i dont feel it playing i just play. just like other games you prob wont feel it. and if you do your prob lying and its just in your head.
 
RossY said:
The only real difference you will see gaming will be in processor hungry games such as RTS games. Supreme Commander is an excellent example of this. I read an article awhile back discussing clockspeeds and number of cores as related to gaming.

One of the games tested was Supreme Commander in which high clockspeeds and quad core made a noticeable difference. However almost every other game (mostly FPS style) that was tested had negligible differences when it came to cores and overclocking. The truth is most games nowadays are about 95% GPU/RAM driven. Hell, I can play BF2142 at max settings on my old athlon with a 7950GT and i get great framerates.
Click to expand...

Go play quake 4 with the patch that enables multithreading and see the difference. It's pretty amazing, even with a GPU intensive game like an FPS. on venice 3800+ at 2.8, i'g get about 75 frames average, with an x2 at stock I got 125 and no slowdown at in game.
 
I tried seeing the difference with the HL2 Lost Coast timedemo on an E6600. Did 3 runs at stock 2.4GHz and got an average of 107.12fps. Then repeated at 3.0GHz and got an average of 134.44fps. 25% overclock yielded 25.5% fps increase. I might look into it more later with different games and more clock speed variation. If I do, I'll post more detailed results.
 
TomGreen321 said:
Go play quake 4 with the patch that enables multithreading and see the difference. It's pretty amazing, even with a GPU intensive game like an FPS. on venice 3800+ at 2.8, i'g get about 75 frames average, with an x2 at stock I got 125 and no slowdown at in game.
Click to expand...

Considering about 75fps is the max a human eye can detect without motion blur, i wouldn't see a difference:p . But i do see(no pun intended) your argument. There have been a lot of patches for games to enable multithreading but from I've read, the performance increase was minimal and none of them increased game performance like that. But anything is possible i guess, and i don't claim to know everything about the relationship of cpus to games.

I do recall playing quake 4 with my old setup and it ran flawlessly with my 7950.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top