Overclocking really worth it ?

[melon]

It seem between the heat generated , the cost of energy consumption it would just be a very bad idea for me to try overclocking unless there was a way you could set it for certain tasks i.e.gaming.

What is the point in the risking your warranty and spending probably a lot more on power on the long run than just using it to upgrade ,unless there is a very good reason, am i missing something ?

Just makes no sense to me.

m

[mrt9888]

Some people just like to squeeze as much power out of their hardware, or just to get better value by buying cheaper hardware and overclocking to the same speed as a higher priced version.

It is difficult to prove hardware has been overclocked. You can decide how far you overclock, but most overclocks don't produce an excessive amount of compared to running at default speeds. You can always leave the power saving features on for the CPU and GPUs have different speeds for idle, 2D and 3D modes.

[melon]

Some people just like to squeeze as much power out of their hardware, or just to get better value by buying cheaper hardware and overclocking to the same speed as a higher priced version.

It is difficult to prove hardware has been overclocked. You can decide how far you overclock, but most overclocks don't produce an excessive amount of compared to running at default speeds. You can always leave the power saving features on for the CPU and GPUs have different speeds for idle, 2D and 3D modes.

When you say excessive amount , do you mean speed , energy consumption or something else ?

m

[mrt9888]

I meant to write heat,

[chuckskull]

For me it was always a bang for buck thing and I do not have many bucks. For example my processor, cost me £40 new. At the time to match it's over clocked performance with an off the shelf chip would have cost £900+ and now a couple of years later I wouldn't be able to play the games I want without that overclock or spending more money, it's stock speed is below most triple A titles minimum requirements. This price difference dwarfs the energy cost and a faster off the shelf chip will use this much power or very near it anyway, as for warranty concerns, if you do it carefully you will have plenty of warning before you do permanent damage.

In fact the basic process used in overclocking are performed on most chips in the factory(slowly increasing clockspeed and voltage), this is called binning, a machine will constantly up clockspeed and find the limit of the chip, then later the chip will be sold below that limit, how much below merely depends on demand and chip yield.

Is it worth it? Well I can run my processor stably at double it's stock speed, I actually run it a little lower just to keep the temps down a bit. This has allowed me for 2 and a half years to run a perfectly respectable gaming rig on a £40 CPU, the price of one game. That's value for money right there and without it PC gaming would probably be off limits to me unless I wanted to wait a couple of years for the hardware to catch up/come down in price.

[kalniel]

It seem between the heat generated , the cost of energy consumption it would just be a very bad idea for me to try overclocking unless there was a way you could set it for certain tasks i.e.gaming.

What is the point in the risking your warranty and spending probably a lot more on power on the long run than just using it to upgrade ,unless there is a very good reason, am i missing something ?

Just makes no sense to me.

m

It's worth doing if you are CPU limited and the increase in electricity consumption is less than the cost of going up the equivalent number of CPU models.

But yes, overclocking is so easy and software controllable these days that you can set it for certain tasks or using one click buttons etc. Although modern CPUs basically control their own speed according to how loaded they are all time anyway.

[jim]

It seem between the heat generated , the cost of energy consumption it would just be a very bad idea for me to try overclocking unless there was a way you could set it for certain tasks i.e.gaming.

What is the point in the risking your warranty and spending probably a lot more on power on the long run than just using it to upgrade ,unless there is a very good reason, am i missing something ?

Just makes no sense to me.

m

Also, if the fastest processor on the market isn't fast enough for you, you have no alternative but to buy it, and overclock it.

[melon]

For me it was always a bang for buck thing and I do not have many bucks. For example my processor, cost me £40 new. At the time to match it's over clocked performance with an off the shelf chip would have cost £900+ and now a couple of years later I wouldn't be able to play the games I want without that overclock or spending more money, it's stock speed is below most triple A titles minimum requirements. This price difference dwarfs the energy cost and a faster off the shelf chip will use this much power or very near it anyway, as for warranty concerns, if you do it carefully you will have plenty of warning before you do permanent damage.

In fact the basic process used in overclocking are performed on most chips in the factory(slowly increasing clockspeed and voltage), this is called binning, a machine will constantly up clockspeed and find the limit of the chip, then later the chip will be sold below that limit, how much below merely depends on demand and chip yield.

Is it worth it? Well I can run my processor stably at double it's stock speed, I actually run it a little lower just to keep the temps down a bit. This has allowed me for 2 and a half years to run a perfectly respectable gaming rig on a £40 CPU, the price of one game. That's value for money right there and without it PC gaming would probably be off limits to me unless I wanted to wait a couple of years for the hardware to catch up/come down in price.

This is one thing that bothers even if I do upgrade " electricity " .

I mean the idea of things like antec or cosair coolers seem good , but do they make that much of difference to energy cosumption i.e. can you run less fans through using it and therefore less energy, or does just keeping the pc cool in it self ( regardless of fans / coolers ) always more economical in the end ?


m

[melon]

It's worth doing if you are CPU limited and the increase in electricity consumption is less than the cost of going up the equivalent number of CPU models.

But yes, overclocking is so easy and software controllable these days that you can set it for certain tasks or using one click buttons etc. Although modern CPUs basically control their own speed according to how loaded they are all time anyway.

SO in other words , its only worth it if you have a ) big enough case b ) a really outdated rig ,so with my small Compaq pesario for example it would be waste of time given the case itslf is 15.5 " high by 7 " in width .

m

[kalniel]

This is one thing that bothers even if I do upgrade " electricity " .

I mean the idea of things like antec or cosair coolers seem good , but do they make that much of difference to energy cosumption i.e. can you run less fans through using it and therefore less energy, or does just keeping the pc cool in it self ( regardless of fans / coolers ) always more economical in the end ?


m

Fans don't change electricity consumption of a PC - the CPU under different fans is generating the same heat (waste electricity) it's just being moved away differently. Different fans and designs might use different amounts, but it's not going to be by a significant amount compared to the power being used in the rest of the computer.

Electricity consumption is determined by the parts themselves (CPU and graphics card primarily), how often they are idle (and thus in power saving mode), and how efficiently the power supply is able to convert what comes out of the wall into what the components require.

[jim]

SO in other words , its only worth it if you have a ) big enough case b ) a really outdated rig ,so with my small Compaq pesario for example it would be waste of time given the case itslf is 15.5 " high by 7 " in width .

m

Not at all. In fact, Kalniel is outlining a situation where the opposite is true. If you've got a Pentium 4 for instance, overclocking it would make it pull even more power than it already does.

Meanwhile, you could buy a really low-budget Core 2 Duo technology chip, that would take hardly any power, and it would be so much cheaper to run that overclocking would actually be economically detrimental.

[mrt9888]

The fans don't use much electricity, but most threads you will see are of people buying things that they don't really need. You can overclock a CPU to a reasonable amount and still use the stock heatsink, you will need at least one case fan to keep the components on the motherboard cool.

A good example of overclocking that provided good bang for buck was when the Core 2 Duos came out and the fastest CPU at the time was the x6800 at 3.33ghz but you could buy a e6300 and with some better RAM you could get the same speed.

When you overclock the higher the overclock the more voltage you will need, producing more heat.

People upgrade as newer proccesor architectures are fatser per mhz, like a Pentium 4 compared to a Core 2 Duo.

[melon]

Not at all. In fact, Kalniel is outlining a situation where the opposite is true. If you've got a Pentium 4 for instance, overclocking it would make it pull even more power than it already does.

Meanwhile, you could buy a really low-budget Core 2 Duo technology chip, that would take hardly any power, and it would be so much cheaper to run that overclocking would actually be economically detrimental.

I see, well there goes any idea of over-clocking my pc out the window..

m

[c.ruel]

Overclocking is definately worth it. The performance gains on CPU overclocking are massive if you compare it to a more expensive stock clocked alternative.

[planet436]

This is one thing that bothers even if I do upgrade " electricity " .

I mean the idea of things like antec or cosair coolers seem good , but do they make that much of difference to energy cosumption i.e. can you run less fans through using it and therefore less energy, or does just keeping the pc cool in it self ( regardless of fans / coolers ) always more economical in the end ?


m

Better heatsinks/fans will allow you to cool your CPU's with less noise certainly which is a consideration for lots of people. What is also important is better-placed fans. Sticking 7-8 fans on a case randomly will probably have a detrimental effect if you aren't inducing a logical flow (basically trying to get cool air in at the bottom and exhaust it at the top without any recirculation of warm air).

Overclocking really old computers can be problematic, big manufacturers who use proprietary technology can have crappy bios which will make it difficult. As mentioned with pentium 4's and the like the additional heat is likely to fry something.

In games which are CPU dependent, then OC will have a large effect. For games which are GPU dependent then overclocking the GPU can have a nice effect. I do overclocking since it is fun , Sandy bridge allows you to OC when under load but drop volts and clocks when browsing or playing music.

[ed^chigliak]

A more powerful or overclocked CPU can finish a task sooner, spend more time at idle and can actually use less electricity. This would be true for video rendering tasks and the likes. Folding never ends so no savings there but you could be turning in more work per watt so technically it is more efficient. All is not as it first appears when considering electricity consumption.