What is the point of CPU modification for you??

[jim]

If it easily hits 3.4 then why not set it to 3.2? it WILL improve performance to some extent & is not likely to heat up too much (assuming no V increase to hit that speed) or die any earlier - ok maybe 6months off the life but by that time we'll be sitting with 10Ghx octo-core CPUs - you get what I mean

I've never had trouble unless I REALLY pushed something which is why I'm sitting at a comfortable 10% overclock right now, to me it's madness to NOT do it if you easily/safely can

Basically, I have 4x2GB sticks of RAM in it at the moment, which stopped it from booting. I had to fiddle around with the NB and DDR2 voltages to get it working nicely, and if I start mucking around with the frequencies, I suspect it will need some more voltage tweaking and if the CMOS gets reset I'll probably have to rip the additional RAM out to make it boot, then keep readjusting until I get everything working. It's not an afternoon I can be bothered to spend!

Like I said so many times before on Hexus if you have an expensive CPU it should perform well at stock. OTH, being able to modify a cheaper CPU to get much higher performance is the whole point of overclocking or unlocking a CPU.

Yep. Hopefully AMD will be more competitive in the £100 to £200 market too this year but Intel can spend more R&D anyway. OTH,even if AMD did come up with another revolutionary architecture they could still use their clout to force a win.

I get the feeling that architecture might be less important with Intel's action - if your choice is between a £50 Intel chip and a £50 AMD chip that's slower at stock, but can be massively overclocked, then the option for low-budget enthusiasts is fairly clear. The fact that it's slower at stock isn't too big a deal. If the i7-920 couldn't be overclocked, then I think more people would have bought the X6 even though it's worse when compared per chip, per GHz to the i7.

[Singh400]

I have highly overclockable parts. In my main rig at the moment, a Q9550 with a TRUE. It can easily do 3.4GHz, and at a push 3.6GHz, up from standard 2.83GHz.

However, I run them at stock. Why? Because it's a huge pain in the neck. The number of PC components I've bust over the years, the instability, the heat, the noise - I just cannot be bothered.

I think the main thing for my with my Q9450 was the time involved. It was literally change setting --> 24 hrs bench in P95. Rinse and repeat until I got a higher enough and a stable clock.

As for the damage part I've been quite lucky. My first OC, and no damage done at all.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I have overclocked all my desktop processors from 2004 onwards and they all still work fine. I usually run the tests when I have been doing other stuff any how so TBH the time spent has not been that much.

The most I have spent on a CPU is around £110 and usually I spend below £100 anyway. I have never spent more than £10 to £15 on a CPU cooler too.

The same goes with motherboard. I tend not to spend more than £50 to £60 on a mATX or ATX motherboard anyway. If it is an SFF motherboard then I will spend more but only because I like smaller PCs.

[Kumagoro]

I enjoy getting a dirt cheap cpu and getting the most from it, thats why I like AMD now
as you get to OC and have the chance of unlocking cores as well. Choosing which
parts to buy, putting it together and OCing the pants off it is the best bit, I kind of feel
a bit disappointed when its all finished.

The extra expense of a CPU cooler though I would get anyway as I want it to be quiet.

Over the years the cost of a decent PC has fallen dramatically. Back around 1995
you would have to spend about £1500, around 2000 about £1000, around 2005 £700 and
2010 about £500 if not £400 and that includes windows and a monitor. Although it does
depend on your definition of a decent PC.

A lot of that thanks to overclocking I would say

[Max Tractor]

Am i missing something here? Any (AFAIK) P67 board will let you take a 'K' chip up to x50 something or another. Lets say £250 (CPU&MB) for a possibility of near 5GHz isn't too bad IMO.

$317 for the 2600k $217 for the 2500k which has no hyperthreading, with the UK price gouge anything 200/300 pounds, then add a motherboard? So you have a choice of these 2 cpu. One of my setups x6/motherboard £200

from review on hardcop http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/...board_review/6

"Morry's Overclocking



Due to us having limited K series processors, Kyle will chime in below on overclocking those. If you do not have a K series processor, you can kiss meaningful overlooking goodbye. You can scale the bus on these new P67 motherboards, but we have not seen truly solid overclocks beyond 6MHz BCLK. Seeing that all Sandy Bridge processors besides K series are multiplier locked, you are SOL pretty much"

See above about K chips and P67 boards. Also, i wouldn't personally qualify 'crunching' as realistic/ daily usage usage.

I had no idea browsing/tube/tweet/email etc was oc relevant. My example is a 24/7 real usage example that you asked for, in the terms of the difference oc/stock.

And your point is what, exactly? You wouldn't plan on going for a decent speed with crap RAM, PSU and so on hence your HX620.

I already made it, quality components is essentially that, whether it be for daily use@stock or oc

Erm, maybe they can go AM3/+ and read some stuff on Wikipedia instead?

Yes shut down all forums and regroup in General Discussion for a non overclocking group hug

No problem, you had a somewhat riveting tale yourself, chap.

Its is all in the oc game, I don't want drip fed, off the shelf , huge corporation overclocking, where is the fun in that


cheers

[DanceswithUnix]

Our house server is stock with an old Athlon X2 2.9GHz cpu in it, other than that every other machine in the house has a mild overclock. Both my machine and the wife's have AMD BE series processors, so it could be argued that AMD charged us extra for the ability to easily overclock just like Intel are now doing.

For some reason though I can't be bothered to overclock the graphics cards any more. Odd that, but perhaps if I need the extra performance then the time is better spent driving to the shops and buying a card with 4x the shaders and memory bandwidth on it

[DanceswithUnix]

I suppose my voting option would be "I like to tweak stuff".

So I didn't vote.

[Terbinator]

$317 for the 2600k $217 for the 2500k which has no hyperthreading, with the UK price gouge anything 200/300 pounds, then add a motherboard? So you have a choice of these 2 cpu. One of my setups x6/motherboard £200

Snip...

I was under the impression its generally accepted the 2500k was going to cost around ~£170. I find it hard to believe you can't get a decent P67 board for the spare £80.

I don't see what the X6 has to do with anything ?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Our house server is stock with an old Athlon X2 2.9GHz cpu in it, other than that every other machine in the house has a mild overclock. Both my machine and the wife's have AMD BE series processors, so it could be argued that AMD charged us extra for the ability to easily overclock just like Intel are now doing.

A non BE CPU can be overclocked still as you can still overclock a current generation AMD processor by not using the multiplier. However,none of the socket 1155 Core i3 processors can be overclocked since the multiplier is fully locked and the base clock can only be increased a small amount. Basically this means the Core i3 processors cannot be overclocked as stated by many reviews. Intel are charging you for the right to overclock and only a Core i5 processor costing over £125 can be overclocked now. On top of this the H67 chipset has no overclocking options unlike the H55 motherboards meaning you will be paying more for the motherboards too.

[Terbinator]

Is there no way TurboBoost can be forced by the motherboard? Okay, its not 'overclocking' but I'm just thinking if there is some way the multiplier can be set to the TurboBoost levels?

[Queelis]

Yes, a clear sign of biased poll.

And Intel just does what it does best - makes money. If they can limit overclocking and charge a premium for it - they will, since their market position lets them. And it's no thing to be upset about - there's no reason they should let anyone get a CPU and make it as fast as their four times more expensive part, it's just not good business.

I think OCing should be regarded as an added bonus and not something that should be provided by the manufacturer.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Is there no way TurboBoost can be forced by the motherboard? Okay, its not 'overclocking' but I'm just thinking if there is some way the multiplier can be set to the TurboBoost levels?

What you described is how the Core i5 2400 can be overclocked as it has some free multipliers due to Turbo. AFAIK,the Core i3 processors lack Turbo and hence you need to increase the base clock to achieve an overclock. However,you can only increase the base clock by a small amount for any of the current Sandy Bridge processors as it can lead to issues.

[Hicks12]

As some have already said, i tend to set a budget and pick parts to fit that. When i last built my rig (jan 2007 or 08) i set my budget and the best cpu out was the e8500/e8400 and ofc the quadcore beast q6600.

The Q6600 wasnt the most powereffcient and that was a factor when i bought my cpu so i went for the dual core in my budget the e8400(i would have gone for a much cheaper one but i have to admit i hadnt been reading up on components in ages), i did assume id overclock it so i knew this would last as it was a gaming rig so the more mhz you get from your cpu the better as hardly any at the time scaled with more cores.

Now for me i poorly researched my motherboard, sure it is a beast at sli and was the first for 2x pci-e 2.0 @16x iirc but it really is terrible at overclocking(stupid nvidia 750i chipset!). If i went for a p35 or something i would have spent less ~£60 instead of the £85 i spent on the board and i would have been able to overclock more successfully!.

I currently have my e8400 sitting at 3.6ghz, will be attempting another overclock tonight as im bored. Im always looking to overclock which is why i have a watercooling loop, it keeps things cool and quiet(another key point for me).

Anyways, i see overclocking as a way to extend the life of components as games will eventually get more demanding so i will end up overclocking more to keep up with this until i upgrade (fortunately i am upgrading to bulldozer this year just for the lols, system is fine but i want to be with AMD again). Intel is milking this position way to much, you shouldnt have the pay just to get an overclock... its fine to lock the multiplyer (they always have havent they?) and provide a version with a multipler unlocked (like AMD BE cpu's) but you must still be able to overclock in some way as its just limiting it to much.

I love AMD just for the ability to try and reuse a 'binned' chip, i.e unlocking an x2 to a x4 even if its say at a lower mhz its still more cores

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Yes, a clear sign of biased poll.

And Intel just does what it does best - makes money. If they can limit overclocking and charge a premium for it - they will, since their market position lets them. And it's no thing to be upset about - there's no reason they should let anyone get a CPU and make it as fast as their four times more expensive part, it's just not good business.

I think OCing should be regarded as an added bonus and not something that should be provided by the manufacturer.

Apart from the fact they have allowed overclocking of lower end parts for at least 10 years.

In the end you are making the justification for companies to charge what they want in the end.

In the middle of a recession it is the consumer who has the power to dictate prices and features not the companies.

In the end we should all buy a pre-built PC like a Dell or a Mac as this will be better source of stable income for Intel and AMD than assembling your own PC.

[lego batman]

The lock-out on overclocking will affect those who have £x to pay for all the parts for a system (for games) all together, rather than those who have budgeted for a CPU specifically.
When I put together my system the method seemed to be get the cheapest proc and mobo combination for overclocking you could to avoid bottlenecks, then fit as good a GPU as possible in with the rest of the budget. When easy overclocks were possible (eg e5200 - almost guaranteed up to ~3.5ghz from 2.5ghz) then the GPU was the premium part. Now that you cannot create your own performance for free you will either have to raise the total budget or cut down on the GPU, making a CPU as important. Indeed it seemed like overclocking was the only point of CPUs like the e5200

[Ulti]

I'm not really liking how you can't overclock the Sandybridge processors unless they have an unlocked multiplier. At least you'll still be able to undervolt, allowing you to run at the same speed but at a lower voltage. I would like the option to overclock though and even though Queelis said it's a bonus that shouldn't be provided, I think it should be as each processor varies and is binned at a certain speed for a reason. But at the end of the day, if the reason why Sandybridge processors are locked from being overclocked (well after 5% overclocking we'll say it's locked) is due to the new architecture allowing better performance, then it may be worth it, especially for those that run the processors on stock anyway.

It's just a shame as I heard all the i3 5x0 processors manage to hit 4ghz easily, most without even a voltage increase (pretty much the same with mine). I would love to compare how the i3 5x0 at 4ghz does compared to a stock i3 sandybridge locked processor, same with the i5 clarkdales/lynnfields vs the stock i5 locked processors. I'm not sure how easily the i5 lynnfields overclock though but I know the i5 clarkdales go even higher than the i3s with no effort.

In terms of the original topic, in the past I'd like to overclock as far as possible to "increase my e-peen" as well as push for every single bit of performance (even if it was unneeded). Now I realised I don't need the performance so I undervolt whilst trying to overclock it a bit (this is only the processor though, I leave the RAM on 1.65V, graphics on stock etc).