Overclocking. Is it worth it?

I never overclocked before a few months ago and for me its been day and night difference and now im hooked. Getting the sweet spot for the perfect overclocking is very worth it IMO.
Everything became faster after overclocking while improving cooling. Its worth the $100~$200 for cooling items for the extra upgrade in speed IMO.
 
I've overclocked about 90% of my systems, ever since owning a celeron 300A/ Abit BH6 combo back in the day. Most of the time, it's given me a performance difference that I can notice in my day to day computing. When it doesn't, I set it back to stock settings until the extra performance is needed.

Recently, my framerate in Skyrim was occasionally bad. I got a lot of freezes and stuttering, especially when autosaving when entering or exiting buildings and such. My processor has been overclocked from the 3.2Ghz stock setting for the last year or so to 4Ghz. It's always run just fine. I decided to replace my GTX 560 ti card with a GTX 660. Part of the upgrade was going from 1GB of RAM to 2GB of RAM. When I installed the card, it would not boot until I set the CPU back to stock. At first I was upset, but then I noticed that the new card offers such a speed advantage over the old card, the CPU speed difference doesn't matter. Skyrim now plays completely smooth and everything I've tried runs well. I don't encode or use photoshop, or anything like that, so for me there really isn't a lot of reason to try to OC this processor again. Just because I like to tinker and tweak I'll probably try to push it again, but at this point it's running perfectly fine at stock settings.
 
PositiveVibe said:
I never overclocked before a few months ago and for me its been day and night difference and now im hooked. Getting the sweet spot for the perfect overclocking is very worth it IMO.
Everything became faster after overclocking while improving cooling. Its worth the $100~$200 for cooling items for the extra upgrade in speed IMO.
Click to expand...

Devil's Advocate:

Why not just spend the extra $100-200 on a better CPU in the first place?
 
$100 is a lot for some. Overclocking started as a poor-man's sport. Back when a basic system would cost $10,000 in today's dollars. Overclocking was a free way to get a $2,000 upgrade, and possibly double performance. Nowadays only the most hard-of-core would spend that kind of cash, and no overclocker could dream of doubling the performance of any part.

But what we overclockers CAN do is add a ton of performance to an already fast system, or add a but more life to an aging system.
 
JayJapanB said:
Because Cpus don't work like that.
Click to expand...

My point is overclocking is only worth if what you spend on extra cooling etc (i.e. any ancillaries required to achieve your desired OC) is LESS than it would cost to buy the next CPU up the range that gives a similar boost in performance (bearing in that it too could be OCed).

For example (a bad one at that) if someone says I'll get a 7950 and OC it to 7970 levels of performance but I will need to spend [insert cost differential between 7970 and 7950 here] on cooling in order to achieve that, then why bother? Just get the 7970 and OC that anyway (using the stock components).

All of this goes out of the window when you add to the mix that OCing and cooling, case modding etc become a hobby. It's not always about the end result in terms of raw performance but it becomes about the journey of putting together a nice system that looks awesome etc.
 
Syphon Filter said:
My point is overclocking is only worth if what you spend on extra cooling etc (i.e. any ancillaries required to achieve your desired OC) is LESS than it would cost to buy the next CPU up the range that gives a similar boost in performance (bearing in that it too could be OCed).

For example (a bad one at that) if someone says I'll get a 7950 and OC it to 7970 levels of performance but I will need to spend [insert cost differential between 7970 and 7950 here] on cooling in order to achieve that, then why bother? Just get the 7970 and OC that anyway (using the stock components).
Click to expand...

But for CPUs it's not as easy situation. You can achieve a much higher overclock on a 3570K than what is available stock from Intel at all and it is still nearly 100 euros cheaper than the next level processor (3770K) that is barely faster in the first place.

Plus with the extra cooling you usually also get better fans and less noise compared to the boxed cooler.
 
Syphon Filter said:
My point is overclocking is only worth if what you spend on extra cooling etc (i.e. any ancillaries required to achieve your desired OC) is LESS than it would cost to buy the next CPU up the range that gives a similar boost in performance (bearing in that it too could be OCed).

For example (a bad one at that) if someone says I'll get a 7950 and OC it to 7970 levels of performance but I will need to spend [insert cost differential between 7970 and 7950 here] on cooling in order to achieve that, then why bother? Just get the 7970 and OC that anyway (using the stock components).

All of this goes out of the window when you add to the mix that OCing and cooling, case modding etc become a hobby. It's not always about the end result in terms of raw performance but it becomes about the journey of putting together a nice system that looks awesome etc.
Click to expand...

I get what you are saying. However it quickly gets to a point where intel don't sell high clocked cpus. If you are needing high performance on a 4 core optimised application and you want better performance than say a 3770k @stock, buying "the next processor up" (a 3930k or a 3970x) is just wasting money and not going to get you any performance benefit.

Hence....
"Cpus don't work that way"
 
Yeah that's fair enough.

I guess my ultimate point was that there's a balance between OCing (including the cost of supporting hardware) to squeeze out extra performance and just buying better hardware in the first place.

As you point out that balance depends on what you're looking to achieve/your particular usage scenario/application.

Back in the old days when it was just single core stuff people I knew were spending silly money to squeeze OCs out of old school Athlon CPUs using expensive coolers/water etc when they could have just bought a faster CPU to begin with that would probably have worked out cheaper...

The game has changed with multi-core it seems (I've been out of the loop for sometime so forgive me)...
 
Another point to consider is many CPU's sold today do overclocking automagically.

Many applications do not see much speed increase after 2 cores. Intel and AMD know this, and their chips kick into a much higher clock at 2 core operations.

Sidebar - From earlier comment: Overclocking started with me with the Zilog Z-80 chip. Back when you overclocked with a soldering iron. It wasn't because you wanted cheap power (a Z-80 CP/M machine could cost $10,000 back when a car was $5000), but you NEEDED more speed. Constructing a cylinder out of 6 XYZ coordinates took 30 seconds. Too long. When I was done, it could do it in 20 seconds. Saved a lot of time, as this was a common operation. A modern cellphone could do it it in less than a millisec.

How did you edit the BIOS? You pulled the PROM chip (often soldered) put it into a programmer, and wrote a new one. If you were smart, you'd solder a socket in so you could swap easier.
 
Last edited:
I say if we are talking about paying $400 for a cpu and $200 for overclocking for a total speed of 4.7ghz vs a $600 CPU that has same speed which there isnt and same price than YES its not worth it. But most people are talking about using current CPUs to get the speed of the upgraded new CPU's. And these days upgraded happen so much its better to keep up to date speed at least without buying a whole new CPU when you already bought one few months back. So if your getting a new rig, getting a better cpu is better than cheaper cpu plus overclocking but even with the better cpu you wanna overclock to get even more speed. lol so yea in both ways i see it. Overclocking is well worth it. I dont see any stock cpus running at 4.6ghz not even the 1000$ cpu at stock level.
 
Last edited:
How people can say it's not worth it? More performance at no cost. If you don't need the performance go with a cheaper cpu and that's it.
 
There is a cost. A max effort overclock can use twice the electricity and heat your room up to crazy levels.

Now, I have ~5 OC computers running. But I know the price. In the long run a Sandy Bridge at stock pays for itself over an i7 32nm clocked up to the same performance.
 
Qinsp said:
There is a cost. A max effort overclock can use twice the electricity and heat your room up to crazy levels.

Now, I have ~5 OC computers running. But I know the price. In the long run a Sandy Bridge at stock pays for itself over an i7 32nm clocked up to the same performance.
Click to expand...

This is true as well. I have 2 pc's running overclocked running about 700~1000w per pc. That room is the only room that doesnt really need heating lol rooms very warm.
 
Qinsp said:
There is a cost. A max effort overclock can use twice the electricity and heat your room up to crazy levels.

Now, I have ~5 OC computers running. But I know the price. In the long run a Sandy Bridge at stock pays for itself over an i7 32nm clocked up to the same performance.
Click to expand...
a typical person would never even notice the difference on an electricity bill and would certainly not heat up thier room enough to matter so lets not exaggerate here.
 
cannondale06 said:
a typical person would never even notice the difference on an electricity bill and would certainly not heat up thier room enough to matter so lets not exaggerate here.
Click to expand...

A typical person wouldn't overclock, so in that sense you're correct. But we are talking about enthusiasts here who monitor every last detail, they may indeed notice.

Most people who OC their CPU's to 5GHz probably also have a power hungry GPU they are overclocking. Between the two, it wouldn't be at all surprising to add an additional ~150 watts of consumption. That's also assuming a single GPU and an Intel processor. Go with an OC'd AMD CPU and that number can easily exceed 200 watts. I'd be shocked if anyone wouldn't feel the additional heat output after a moderate 2-3 hour gaming session.
 
cannondale06 said:
a typical person would never even notice the difference on an electricity bill and would certainly not heat up thier room enough to matter so lets not exaggerate here.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you WILL notice the heat in a 12x12 room with max effort machine. When your machine burns 1000w, that all turns to heat. You will feel it. A lot. I'm only burning 475w at the wall, and without A/C it's warm in the winter.

Your power bill? That varies. I pay .31 per kwh. So 3 hours is just under a dollar. Run 3 hours a day, that's about $25 per month, or $300/yr. $300 a year is what my car insurance is.

$300 is enough to upgrade the CPU in a year.
 
RamonGTP said:
A typical person wouldn't overclock, so in that sense you're correct. But we are talking about enthusiasts here who monitor every last detail, they may indeed notice.

Most people who OC their CPU's to 5GHz probably also have a power hungry GPU they are overclocking. Between the two, it wouldn't be at all surprising to add an additional ~150 watts of consumption. That's also assuming a single GPU and an Intel processor. Go with an OC'd AMD CPU and that number can easily exceed 200 watts. I'd be shocked if anyone wouldn't feel the additional heat output after a moderate 2-3 hour gaming session.
Click to expand...
I was referring to the typical person with a typical oc on a Sandy Bridge cpus. no way is it possible to notice the difference on electricity bill from a typical oc on those. and in way does the room get any hotter.
 
Qinsp said:
Yeah, you WILL notice the heat in a 12x12 room with max effort machine. When your machine burns 1000w, that all turns to heat. You will feel it. A lot. I'm only burning 475w at the wall, and without A/C it's warm in the winter.

Your power bill? That varies. I pay .31 per kwh. So 3 hours is just under a dollar. Run 3 hours a day, that's about $25 per month, or $300/yr. $300 a year is what my car insurance is.

$300 is enough to upgrade the CPU in a year.
Click to expand...
I dont think your math is right but anyway having my cpu overclocked has zero real world impact on my power bill or heat in my room. the only way you could tell a difference was if monitoring this scenario in a lab with the exact same daily usage. so again its NOTHING to even worry about unless you have some of the really power hungry cpus oced to hell and run your machine at max.
 
cannondale06 said:
I was referring to the typical person with a typical oc on a Sandy Bridge cpus. no way is it possible to notice the difference on electricity bill from a typical oc on those. and in way does the room get any hotter.
Click to expand...

But you responded to a post talking about max effort OCing... :confused:
 
RamonGTP said:
But you responded to a post talking about max effort OCing... :confused:
Click to expand...
I saw where Sandy Bridge was mentioned so maybe I misread. again though I said typical so clearly I was not referring to someone running insane oc on max load all the time. people around here just exaggerate pc power usage by looking at extreme cases under full load. heck my whole pc does not even pull much over 200 watts in most games and cpu and gpu are oced. most people here need not be concerned at all with power consumption and heat with a Sandy or Ivy Bridge oc.
 
PositiveVibe said:
This is true as well. I have 2 pc's running overclocked running about 700~1000w per pc. That room is the only room that doesnt really need heating lol rooms very warm.
Click to expand...

I call BULLSHIT on these power figures....

I got an 3570k @ 4.5Ghz and a 7950 card OCed to 1200/1500 and at FULL load I see ~350W usage. Idle is half that... How do you get ~1000W per PC??? :confused:
 
mzs_biteme said:
I call BULLSHIT on these power figures....

I got an 3570k @ 4.5Ghz and a 7950 card OCed to 1200/1500 and at FULL load I see ~350W usage. Idle is half that... How do you get ~1000W per PC??? :confused:
Click to expand...

Sorry but i have 2 1000w PSU is what i meant. I have a SLI gtx 680 and many fans and water cooling but doesnt even max out at 600~750watts but was just making a thought of statement lol.. Running 3930k OC'ed at 4.8ghz and 8 sticks of ram=32gb @1600mhz and 2 ssd and 2 hdd

Honestely i dont even know how much watts im outputing lol. But to tell you the truth after coming in my PC room from my other rooms it is a little bit warmer and very noticable in a 10x12 room.
 
A dual Xeon SR-2 at 4ghz with a pair of OC'd GTX480's will go past 1000w at max effort. Been there. Had to move as it tripped the break at the panel.

Not a typical machine but there is a reason you see 1200w PSU's for sale.
 
I do it because I can. I don't notice a difference, but it's there in benchmarks.

The difference between stock and OC'd is a decent amount, but the lowest level isn't really that low (2600K). So, it's like driving a Corvette and a Ferrari on the freeway. You really don't notice until you punch it, and even then it's not too dramatic of a difference. But, in day to day stuff, the difference is there, it's just not a huge difference. It's either fast or really fast.
 
Now all that being said about power, it's fun to tweak the hardware. It's what makes us enthusiasts instead of just users.

But if a busted mobo, CPU, PSU, RAM, or GPU, is going to upset you really bad, then it's not for you. You WILL break things pushing the limits. It just a question of when.
 
I personally don't notice any difference in simple tasks, but it's definitely there in benchmarks. Also I can't just let that free power go to waste.
 
I think the point is it's not "free".

You're paying for it one way or another in terms of power usage/extra heat and possibly reduced lifespan (which are obviously linked).

Whether any of those factors are actually large enough to be a problem/even be noticeable is debatable.
 
Syphon Filter said:
I think the point is it's not "free".

You're paying for it one way or another in terms of power usage/extra heat and possibly reduced lifespan (which are obviously linked).

Whether any of those factors are actually large enough to be a problem/even be noticeable is debatable.
Click to expand...

That really depends on the situation.

I've had an old 8500gt that is still running in my parents pc that I Oc'd the snot out of when all I had was sliders in rivatuner and I had no idea what I was doing. The card still works fine and overclocking it actually made it capable of playing games.

That was free performance as far as I am concerned.

Same with the e8200 in the same pc. 2.6Ghz to 3Ghz.
Broke some bottlenecks with my 4890 and that was with a stock cooler.
Cpu is still running and used to this day.

On the other hand I have spent Over a thousand on watercooling on my old rig and new one (recycled some parts and had some parts break). The old one was 4ghz i7 950 and the new one is only 4.6ghz :D

Not so much value packed, hehe.

A lot of fun though and my rig is silent.
And that is the hobby side of overclocking.
 
Ofcourse overclocking is worth it. I have my rig at 4.5 GHz for daily use. That is 20-35% more performance on average on almost all of the games I play.
 
Syphon Filter said:
I think the point is it's not "free".

You're paying for it one way or another in terms of power usage/extra heat and possibly reduced lifespan (which are obviously linked).

Whether any of those factors are actually large enough to be a problem/even be noticeable is debatable.
Click to expand...

The power usage increase is there, but very negligable for the most part.

And as long as you keep the heat down and don't push the voltages out of safe range, the lifespan is really not going to be affected much if at all.

I have been overclocking since the 80386 days. Have never owned a computer besides a laptop that wasn't overclocked.. except for the obvious things like a Commadore 64, Timex T1000, etc.

It is true, you can kill parts overclocking.. and I have killed my fair share of parts. But all of those were due to modding and not just regular overclocking.

Had a Nvidia 7900GS that was faulty when I got it.. would artifact like crazy. I made a cooler for it, and it worked fine.. so then I proceeded to do a voltage mod and had that sucker overclocked by 50% for a year before it completely died.

I even broke a socket-A Athlon into 3 pieces because I tightened my home made water block down too much.

Also fried a few K6-2 chips when experimenting with water cooling. At $50 a pop, I didn't mind though.

Now I have toned it down a bit, and haven't messed with crazy mods in quite a while. At 4.9Ghz on my 3820, I really don't see a need to go any faster.. and that is about the max the chip can do anyway because it is a locked chip.

But it does make quite a difference in computational heavy programs as does the faster RAM.

I've also never been in the croud that says that faster RAM doesn't make a difference.. Maybe in some games, yes, the FPS won't be affected that much.. but responsiveness in games can be noticed, as well as area changes, etc.

And in RAM heavy programs, the extra RAM speed makes quite a bit of difference.
 
C1E disabled overclocked to 3.9~4.3ghz is > $1000+ worth of processor IMO for a merley $100~$150 dollars in cooling on top of a $300~ processor.
 
Syphon Filter said:
I think the point is it's not "free".

You're paying for it one way or another in terms of power usage/extra heat and possibly reduced lifespan (which are obviously linked).

Whether any of those factors are actually large enough to be a problem/even be noticeable is debatable.
Click to expand...

Sure, if you're dumb enough to put more voltage through the CPU than you're supposed to on stock cooling, it's not "free".

If you're running decent cooling with smart voltage adjustments, yes, it IS "free".
 
It certainly can be free, although with most of my games the CPU is only a tiny portion of what makes up overall performance.
 
I only overclock to extend the time before I need to build a new system.
 
JayJapanB said:
A lot of fun though and my rig is silent.
And that is the hobby side of overclocking.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I think I did mention that once it becomes a hobby it's not about value anymore. :)

zero2dash said:
If you're running decent cooling with smart voltage adjustments, yes, it IS "free".
Click to expand...

/facepalm

No, no it's not. If you're overclocking you're using more power whether you're at stock voltages or have adjusted your voltage up even slightly.

So unless you've under-volted the increased power comes at a cost. It's not free.

BUT as I said in my earlier post it is debatable whether the increase in noticeable/anything to worry about.
 
The correct answer is, the benefit of overclocking is not one size fits all.

--- Someone that owns the original I7 920 @ only 2.66 GHz will have large benefits in many games and apps going to 4GHz+.

---Someone that owns a I7 3970@3.5Ghz will not likely see a improvement in games so not worth it if only gaming, but may see improvements in certain apps they may or may not use.


Depends what you own, depends what you do!
 
Syphon Filter said:
No, no it's not. If you're overclocking you're using more power whether you're at stock voltages
Click to expand...

Explain that to me.

Same Vcc yet >MHz = more power. Huh? :rolleyes:
That's the dumbest thing I've heard in my life.

Please tell me how in the hell an overclocked system on stock voltage across the board takes up more power than a completely 100% stock system.
Maybe you're putting too much emphasis into 'auto' typically overvolting, and I can agree with that. But when you actually dial in the exact voltage required under stock and all you do is raise the BCLK or the multiplier - you are using no more power than a stock system. Less, in fact, because you're no longer running on 'auto' and dealing with overvoltage.
 
When the C1E is on the power ratio isnt much noticable on your electric bill. But when C1E is off and its overclocked, there is a few bucks added to your monthly bill. But ill rather pay few bucks a month more and save me some time.
 
zero2dash said:
Explain that to me.

Same Vcc yet >MHz = more power. Huh? :rolleyes:
That's the dumbest thing I've heard in my life.

Please tell me how in the hell an overclocked system on stock voltage across the board takes up more power than a completely 100% stock system.
Maybe you're putting too much emphasis into 'auto' typically overvolting, and I can agree with that. But when you actually dial in the exact voltage required under stock and all you do is raise the BCLK or the multiplier - you are using no more power than a stock system. Less, in fact, because you're no longer running on 'auto' and dealing with overvoltage.
Click to expand...
so you actually think that power usage does not go up unless the voltage is increased?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top