Decisions, Decisions

[JasmineTF]

"To overclock, or not to overclock; that is the question."

I've always felt that one should purchase whatever processor is necessary to do the job, and not overtax a weaker one. Yet, people here talk about overclocking as if it is routine and no real biggie.

Does overclocking shorten a processor's life, or is it a solid technique that allows you to get more for your money?

[Aaron_8015]

Well both TBH. When I look at upgrading I tend to get the cheapest of the top line CPU's. There can be a huge difference in price between a slightly slower clocked CPU than the fastest.

What will normaly shorten the life of CPU's is the extra v-core (though you can overclock without changing it, but you wont normaly get it far). Iv'e not had a CPU die on me yet, and I have some older machines still running.

For most enthusiasts its not a problem as they will tend to upgrade as soon as the latest thing hits the shelves, so the shortened life of their surplus CPU is a moot point.

[RicheemxX]

The life of a chip, even an overclocked one, is going to be far greater than its effectiveness. Meaning the chip will be outdated to the point it will no longer be very useful well before it's lifespan should be up.

Case in point, many TIMO users have run OC'ed systems 24/7 for distributed computing projects without ever having a single system failure. In many cases those users have retired those systems as the components have effectively out lived their usefulness because they have since upgraded to newer, faster, cooler running systems.

With proper cooling and the proper amount of care there is really little to worry about.

[RicheemxX]

I should add, IMO OC'ing has really become more of a bragging right than an actual performance benefit. (unless you are really pushing the oc'ing envelope and doing a high oc.)

I say that because in most cases the systems we are running now are powerful enough that you aren't going to see much difference in terms of actual real world performance. You only really see the difference when running benchmarks or a slight difference when gaming.

Back in the single core, and early dual core days, the differences were much greater. You could OC a very cheap very overclockable single core chip to high levels and get a performance boost that would be very noticeable. If I recall correctly here was also a more noticeable difference in chip prices.

[JasmineTF]

Thanks, guys. I think I understand the concept much better now.

[ShyguyXPC]

Its basically like Hot Rodding a Car, it'll be great for on the track or for show (benchmarks and Bragging rights), but pretty much useless for Every day driving on the road.

I haven't OC'd in years, haven't had much need to, ever since I went to a Quad core, when I still had a 2.13GHz Dual core (Core 2 Duo), there were times I wanted it faster, but over all really didn't need anything faster.

With my First Quad core, it was 2.4GHz, but for 99% of my uses I didn't need anything faster, even if the software was only using 1 or 2 of the 4 cores.

The only stuff I was running that even used all 4 cores effectively was 3D Graphics/Animation Rendering, or occasional games like Supreme Commander that could use all the cores.

Same thing goes for my Current Quad core, i7 920 @ 2.66 GHz, I'd like to see more speed, but for most of my uses there's little point.

right now though, I'd rather have more CPU Cores, than clock speed, for the 3D stuff.

so for me, there's really little need for Overclocking... though I'd still like to do it with some of my stuff.

Now for example if I were to run my dinky little Pentium Dual core that runs at 1.6GHz and use it for gaming (Which I don't intend to right now), overclocking it to 2 or more GHz, I'd see a noticeable Performance increase, but I just haven't gotten around to doing any of that yet.

[thephilosophizer]

Its basically like Hot Rodding a Car, it'll be great for on the track or for show (benchmarks and Bragging rights), but pretty much useless for Every day driving on the road.

I haven't OC'd in years, haven't had much need to, ever since I went to a Quad core, when I still had a 2.13GHz Dual core (Core 2 Duo), there were times I wanted it faster, but over all really didn't need anything faster.

With my First Quad core, it was 2.4GHz, but for 99% of my uses I didn't need anything faster, even if the software was only using 1 or 2 of the 4 cores.

The only stuff I was running that even used all 4 cores effectively was 3D Graphics/Animation Rendering, or occasional games like Supreme Commander that could use all the cores.

Same thing goes for my Current Quad core, i7 920 @ 2.66 GHz, I'd like to see more speed, but for most of my uses there's little point.

right now though, I'd rather have more CPU Cores, than clock speed, for the 3D stuff.

so for me, there's really little need for Overclocking... though I'd still like to do it with some of my stuff.

Now for example if I were to run my dinky little Pentium Dual core that runs at 1.6GHz and use it for gaming (Which I don't intend to right now), overclocking it to 2 or more GHz, I'd see a noticeable Performance increase, but I just haven't gotten around to doing any of that yet.

I've been running a 920 at 3.6ghz on stock voltage for a year and a half or so now. Never had a hiccup, definitely can note a difference in some games, and in 3dmark.
I'd just say that a lot of chips are capable of more than what they are used for. I had a core 2 duo 21** that I clocked up from I think 2.2 up to 3.4, ran steady for a good long while, posting performance of a most more expensive chip.
I think rich's point is well made that by the time the chip will wear out, that it will already be far behind the current class of hardware.
And plus, it is kind of a game in-and-of-itself to see what you can pull out of your system, how you can tweak it, what works and what doesn't, etc (with of course the bit of risk factor in fiddling with such things).

[Taxmancometh]

Unlocking a third core and overclocking that chip is something else that might be necessary. So for the price of a triple core you get a quad core plus your over-clock means you get more bang for your buck. There is a particular AMD proc. I would love to get my hands on. It has been unlocked and there are guides on how to do it. with the right MOBO.

[ShyguyXPC]

unlock 3rd core on what?

"Unlocking a third core and overclocking that chip is something else that might be necessary."

[RicheemxX]

Meh confused there as well...unlocking cores and overclocking are two different animals. If you have an AMD triple core chip that can be unclocked and it is stable and you have one of the several boards out there designed to do so then yeah you'd be a fool not to.

[Taxmancometh]

You can unlock a core and then over clock it. What's not to understand??

[RicheemxX]

Well of course you can, but As Shy pointed out you made it sound like a statement when you added that chip. I think we were both thinking you were talking about a specific scenario when AFAIK the OP hadn't mentioned any one single chip

[ShyguyXPC]

Well of course you can, but As Shy pointed out you made it sound like a statement when you added that chip. I think we were both thinking you were talking about a specific scenario when AFAIK the OP hadn't mentioned any one single chip

exactly... no one prior to taxman's reply had said anything about a Dual core being unlocked to a Triple core.

In fact no mention of an AMD CPU was listed, other than the Intel Dual and Quad cores me and Philosophizer had mentioned.

none of which, as far as I know have a 3rd core to unlock.

Which sounds more like an AMD thing than anything.

[Taxmancometh]

I thought the thread was about over clocking and I merely added that there is in fact a benefit when it comes to a triple core. In where you can possibly unlock the third core and over clock the proc. When I mention the chip I mean the proc.

[Taxmancometh]

Unlocking a third core and overclocking the proc is something else that might be necessary. So for the price of a triple core you get a quad core plus your over-clock means you get more bang for your buck. There is a particular AMD proc. I would love to get my hands on. It has been unlocked and there are guides on how to do it. with the right MOBO.

My bad. I used "that". Why the hell did I use "that chip" ????

[ShyguyXPC]

there, THAT is better

but still, even with the Unlocking of AMD cores, its a tricky proposition, you have to make sure you have a Motherboard with the proper chipset to support the Bios feature for unlocking the core.

And make sure that the chip you have, has the proper steppings, as with some of them, AMD started to make them completely unable to unlock.

so you have to make sure the CPU you get is capable of it in the first place, and the motherboard is capable (Not sure on the new AMD 800 series chipsets, but previously you needed an AMD board with a SB710 or 750 Southbridge to get it to work)... then hope it unlocks.

Then go from there with the overclocking.

Its feasible, but besides worrying about how much the CPU is even capable of Overclocking, you have to worry about whether you'll be able to even unlock the extra core/cores or not.

[JasmineTF]

You can unlock a core and then over clock it. What's not to understand??

To say that I understand the level that you guys are operating at would be true false bravado, but it does lead me to another question.

If processors have that much more to offer in terms of performance, why aren't the manufacturers themselves maximizing that performance to begin with? Is it to ensure mechanical reliability by not taxing them to their limit?

[RacerX]

Because it's all about the Benjamins.

Basically 2 things are at play.
First, they need a variety of CPU's at different price points.
The high end "latest and greatest", along with some versions that are "unlocked" for easier overclocking by enthusiasts, and cheaper more "mainstream" processors.

Second, they use the same dies to make these chips, and some are "binned" for higher clock speeds, and some don't quite pass the test, but are still 100% reliable at a lower clock speed.

To further add, sometimes they need more of the budget CPU's then are available, so they relabel the high end CPU's down, thus you see some people with a lower end CPU that is running at a high clock rate when overclocked.

If they started out at the highest clock speeds, they'd have no where to go from there, thus each new version usually starts out lower than the high end of the last version, so they can continue to come out with new stuff and keep the industry moving.

As for overclocking, I've been OC'ing since the days of the AMD K-2, and always will as long as it's possible.
For the most part anyone can do a light overclock, but when you get towards the extreme end, it becomes a science so to speak.
Thus, my 3.0 Ghz CPU is running at 4.6 Ghz. Has been for a year now, and will last longer than It will be of use before it's eventually upgraded.
Nowadays, it's pretty hard to kill a chip by overheating it, they have thermal protections in place. It's too extreme of over volting that can kill them quicker.

If you decide to OC, research your board and CPU, and see what others have done, and decide from there, how far you want to go. A light OC, you can stick with stock cooling, anything beyond that and you'll want to beef up cooling.

Finally, as these guys have covered, it depends on what you are doing, and what the rest of your system specs are. this is a determining factor as to what if any "performance" difference you will see outside of Synthetic benchmarks.

[Taxmancometh]

One thing about my mother board is that its a create overcloker, but the north bridge heats up like a soldering iron. So most people might think it's all CPU cooling. Not so...

In Doc Brown's voice - "4.6Ghz!!??"

[JasmineTF]

As for overclocking, I've been OC'ing since the days of the AMD K-2, and always will as long as it's possible.
For the most part anyone can do a light overclock, but when you get towards the extreme end, it becomes a science so to speak.
Thus, my 3.0 Ghz CPU is running at 4.6 Ghz. Has been for a year now, and will last longer than It will be of use before it's eventually upgraded.
Nowadays, it's pretty hard to kill a chip by overheating it, they have thermal protections in place. It's too extreme of over volting that can kill them quicker.

If you decide to OC, research your board and CPU, and see what others have done, and decide from there, how far you want to go. A light OC, you can stick with stock cooling, anything beyond that and you'll want to beef up cooling.

That was awesomely informative! Thanks!

Learning on my own, I wouldn't dare mess with my system at home. Here at work, though, I have some older computers lying around. I think I'll start out experimenting on one of those. The "untimely death" of one of them wouldn't be a problem for anyone.