Is overclocking necessary for gaming?

[rob4001]

I pose the question as I'm downsizing my system from a ATX tower to a mitx build and was wondering as I'm changing my motherboard I may as well change my CPU from a 2500k which i have never overclocked to haswell the 4670k is rather expensive so was thinking of getting a cheaper non k version and get a cheaper h81 board.

My understanding in most games is gpu dependent apart from a few and I BF4 as an example but I don't believe a modern cpu would struggle anyway.

[kalniel]

No.

At least, not in the general way you put it. Nor is it currently necessary for a 4670. However if you want to run a CPU that is normally just a bit too slow for gaming then you might need to overclock it. Predicting that need for the future is impossible, but you don't even need to overclock your 2500 yet.

[mikeo01]

Completely depends on the game.

E.g. strategy games are notorious for kicking the day lights out of CPUs because of all the AI and movement calculations etc. The smarter the AI the harder it is on your processor.
Same for physics and other calculations within the game.

Isn't a necessity but in some CPU dependent games (lots of AI for example) it'll be better to have a highly overclocked chip (dual/quad) than many cores. Some scale with cores (Battlefield), some like high IPC and speed (strategy).

[Stylin]

I say if you have a good cooler and you are not going to void any warranties just go for it. It is so easy these days and although it may not be a night and day difference. It is more power for your PC to draw from.

Also I find a lot of newer shooters have some heavy CPU draw even without bots. Don't forget that a lot of games/programs do not take full advantage of multi core and can rely heavily on a single thread. With that in mind OC'ing your CPU from 2.8 too 4.2 (random example) and keeping it nice and cool can make a pretty big difference in certain games.

P.S. BF3 is a CPU hog

[Scainer]

A few years back I remember reading about cpu frequency scaling in a variety of games and it summarised that after 4.0-4.1GHz any gains drop off swiftly, but as mentioned some games will have little benefit.
e.g. (just for illustration not actual figures)

3.2GHz - games average 60.0 FPS (100%)
3.7GHz - games average 66.0 FPS (110%) nice gain
4.2GHz - games average 70.0 FPS (116%) nice gain but levelling out
5.2GHz - games average 70.2 FPS (117%) no real gain considering the OC



Edit:
Tried to find the article without success, but did come across other info.
The difference between 3.5GHz and 4.5GHz in a selection of games was no more than 2 FPS, so not worth crying over.
Thinking about it, I think it (the article) was back with the i5 750 which ran turbo at 3.2GHz so the sweet spot was 3.9 - 4.0 Ghz

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Nope.

[Stylin]

Nope.

Well put lol. But seriously it has benefits in a multitude of different situations. Why say just "Nope."

[kalniel]

Well put lol. But seriously it has benefits in a multitude of different situations. Why say just "Nope."

Because he's right and the direct answer to the question is "no".

The question isn't "is there any benefit at all to overclocking in a CPU frequency limited scenario?", it's "is it necessary for gaming?"

[Pob255]

"is it necessary for gaming?" no
Is there any benefit when gaming? depends on the gpu, the monitor setup, the game and the game settings.

Benefit from overclocking depends on the game but tends to sharply fall off around 3.2-3.6ghz AFAIK, benefits start to fall off around 2.8ghz but tend to still be noticeable until around 3.2ghz.
That's with a single top end gpu and reduced settings to minimise gpu bottle neck.
There's other factors too, background/other processes also play a part, if you run skype/teamspeak/mumble while gaming then that needs cpu time, fraps recording will eat a cpu core at least.

one nice thing on the newer intel cpu's is turbo core, that effectively automatically overclocks your cpu if some of the cores are under used.

[Scainer]

"Opinions are like a##holes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks."

some figures....

Battlefield 4 @ 1920x1200 R9 290X

i7-4770k @ 2.50GHz average 96 fps
i7-4770k @ 3.00GHz average 97 fps
i7-4770k @ 3.50GHz average 97 fps
i7-4770k @ 4.00GHz average 98 fps
i7-4770k @ 4.50GHz average 100 fps

Another article states
"For Crysis Warhead, we can spot a similar trend, FPS reaching a plateau after some frequency.
This freqeuncy varies,
2.5 Ghz for 1680 x 1050 No AA
2.1 Ghz for 1680 x 1050 4x AA
2.1 Ghz for 1920 x 1200 No AA"


To contradict this my old q6600 the stock speed of 2.4GHz was noticeably slower than when it was running at 3.4GHz.

[Bonebreaker777]

My mate got a PC with a 4670k but the performance in games didn't changed whether it was OCd or not, but seen immediate results when he OCd his GPU (HD 7770 hit frequency limitations in drivers).

You can easily get away with non-k CPU and enjoy yourself.

[Ttaskmaster]

Depends entirely on who you ask...

For example, if you ask a particular friend of mine, you need to overclock your CPU to 20 GHz, OC the RAM, OC the GPU, OC the PSU, OC the SSD, OC the fan controller, OC the mouse, OC the desk, OC the 240V mains and OC your salary to pay for it all... as well as buying replacement components for when the OC'd ones melt!!

On the other hand, I OC'd my 6350 to 4.5GHz simply because I could.
My GPU is slightly OC'd as well, but to be honest - even with default clocks, I can play just about anything out there in 1080p with reasonable settings and don't experience a single issue.

[Pob255]

interesting numbers here, although we should link to sources

One thing I'll mention is that when I originally went from my core2duo e6600 oc @ 3.2ghz to a 1st gen i5 750 @ 2.66ghz it was noticeably slower but noticeably better once OC @ 3.2ghz

I think that FSB overclocking gave you a more noticeable speed bump than just upping the multiplier but it's more down to reducing system latency than increasing raw number crunching.
in part my numbers are out of date based on what I remember from the 1st and 2nd gen core i cpu's
But again game, gpu, monitor setup and game setup will change the numbers as they change the load required by the cpu and graphics card.

[Stylin]

Because he's right and the direct answer to the question is "no".

The question isn't "is there any benefit at all to overclocking in a CPU frequency limited scenario?", it's "is it necessary for gaming?"

. Saying "nope" is just a weak opinion in my opinion. All I am saying is it does have benefits in a lot of games (situations). I don't have to defend that as it is based off fact. I had a Q6600 before I got my 3570K and OCing that old Q6600 was a huge resource for keeping my PC relevant. Games like WOW and SC2 had a noticeable impact and don't even get me started on BF3. BF3 was a beast on my CPU and kicking it up made a world of difference. To tell me that it was all in my head is madness.

My newer i5 3570K may not need to be OC'd as much. But again kicking it up and keeping it properly cooled does give a gain. That is a fact too. So Nope is a refutable answer and kind of drives me up the wall.

OC'ing your CPU should be based off the individual parts of the PC and the owners confidence. Some builds are so beast there is no need. Some are built with a definite need for OC'ing. That is also a fact!

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

. Saying "nope" is just a weak opinion in my opinion. All I am saying is it does have benefits in a lot of games (situations). I don't have to defend that as it is based off fact. I had a Q6600 before I got my 3570K and OCing that old Q6600 was a huge resource for keeping my PC relevant. Games like WOW and SC2 had a noticeable impact and don't even get me started on BF3. BF3 was a beast on my CPU and kicking it up made a world of difference. To tell me that it was all in my head is madness.

My newer i5 3570K may not need to be OC'd as much. But again kicking it up and keeping it properly cooled does give a gain. That is a fact too. So Nope is a refutable answer and kind of drives me up the wall.

OC'ing your CPU should be based off the individual parts of the PC and the owners confidence. Some builds are so beast there is no need. Some are built with a definite need for OC'ing. That is also a fact!

Weak opinion for what?? Overclocking is NOT NEEDED for gaming. In fact, kalniel summed it up:

The question isn't "is there any benefit at all to overclocking in a CPU frequency limited scenario?", it's "is it necessary for gaming?"

Maybe,you should check how long I have been here, and how many builds I have specced here for people before trying to consider that I am clueless about what I said. I have done plenty of overclocking - my previous build had a Q6600 in a Shuttle which I modded and overclocked as much as I can. I have overclocked tons of CPUs. I have mates with newer Intel and AMD CPUs,some overclocked,some unlocked and many at stock clockspeeds. Many of those builds I specced. That is 100s of builds over the last few years.

The best SC2 player I ever knew was in the Diamond League,and he was clueless about hardware. Had a Phenom II X4 965 and an HD6870. All at stock.

Most PC gamers are clueless about hardware or don't care about overclocking. Heck even two of my mates are overclocking,since each wanted to outdo each other with the same CPU(a bit of E-PEEN but they admit it),but even they say their CPUs at stock are enough for many games. BTW,those include WoW,SC2,D3,etc too. One of them had a overclocked HD7870LE,and he ran the CPU at stock for yonks,even after he had overclocked since he found the framerates fine - it only took his other mate overclocking to start putting back his own CPU overclock.

What you don't seem to get is that most GAMERS don't overclock,so are you honestly saying none of them can run games??

Most GAMING pre-built PCs sold ATM are not overclocked too,unless you pay decent money.

What about all those people gaming on laptops - I have seen more and more people shifting to gaming laptops from desktops.

Many people are gaming on Dells and the like,which they upgrade with a better card,etc.

Now with Mantle and DX12 overclocking the CPU is going to make less of an impact,and needing a better graphics card will be most likely more important.

Considering that any Intel CPU under a £160 to £170 Core i5 4670k cannot be overclocked,that means the vast majority of gamers buying Intel based setups cannot overclock their CPUs.

Heck,I was the one bitching and moaning about Intel locking out overclocking on low end chips with SB - check the big thread on it.

Funny,since I replaced my older system with an SB based using an H67 ITX motheboard. At the time no overclocking ones existed for ages. I had both a Core i3 2100(stop gap) and Xeon E3 1220(for a total cost of £130 for both),and the system is 3 years old. No overclocking at all.

My last system lasted 4 years to three months to 4 years to six months as my main rig,and I had an E4000 series dual core followed by a Q6600 quad core,both overclocked.

Yet with my newer system with a massively overclocked HD5850 1GB followed by a overclocked GTX660,so far I have had no problems with any games I have tried to run,which includes many new FPS titles. Crysis 3 pushed my system the most and it was more GPU limited. Metro:Last Light,etc were fine. Games like PS2 and SWTOR run fine.

Last time I bothered to fire up SC2 or Civ5 they were fine too.

Unless my system dies,walks off or I get an attack of upgradetitus,I am more likely to be sticking with the Xeon E3 1220 for the rest of the year,which means I am getting almost the same lifespan as my older system,without any overclocking.

OTH,once I add inflation too,I probably have spent less on CPUs than with my previous system.

[kalniel]

. Saying "nope" is just a weak opinion in my opinion.

While all posts are opinions to some extent, the volume of evidence backing this up is quite large, to the point we could consider it factual and therefore there's no weakness/strength to be had. It is just what it is.

All I am saying is it does have benefits in a lot of games (situations).

That's all well and good, but with respect, has nothing to do with the question the OP asked. Maybe there's a language barrier here, but there's a HUGE difference between need and benefit. As system builders that's a really important difference too - because first we have to cover what's needed, and only if there's spare budget will we put it towards what's beneficial (and even then, we'll put it to what's the most beneficial - so for gaming that's usually the graphics card, for general usage an SSD etc.)

So Nope is a refutable answer and kind of drives me up the wall.

It shouldn't drive you up the wall. If you disagree with the answer then you're saying that OCing is necessary for gaming - which is a far more refutable position and certainly not factual.