PDA

View Full Version : Do you overclock your PC?



starbase1
06-02-2008, 03:09 AM
I've enjoyed some of the recent hardware type discussions, and as we are in an area where performance really counts, I'd be interested to see people's view of overclocking.

Lightwolf
06-02-2008, 04:03 AM
Normally I wouldn't... but I do have a Q6600 running at 3GHz after just upping the FSB - mainly because it still stays cool and stable.
I wouldn't go to great lengths though, I just don't have the time to tweak and test the system (and with testing I mean at least a 24 hour burn-in to make sure).

Cheers,
Mike

starbase1
06-02-2008, 04:32 AM
Speaking purely personally I have read that my (Asus) motherboard and core 2 duo are well suited to overclocking, there are a lot of options to support it in the BIOS.

I'm just not really sure what I am doing, and very relucant to risk the stability of the machine as a whole.

Captain Obvious
06-02-2008, 05:36 AM
I even overclocked my Dell workstation! :)

Though my home PC is actually running unoverclocked at the moment -- largely because the most stressing thing I do on it at the moment is Neverwinter Nights 2. :P

Matt
06-02-2008, 07:04 AM
You need the response:

- I would OC, but not until I'm on water cooling!

JeffrySG
06-02-2008, 07:11 AM
Not sure if many mac people are overclocking their machines, but I feel I don't hear much of it on the mac end. So I don't really even think of it.

COBRASoft
06-02-2008, 07:13 AM
Matt, I'm thinking of buying a water cooled system of HP, but they only have it with Opterons in their workstations.

I'll probably build my own system by the end of the year. Trying to do Dual Quad, watercooled, 2x 30" LCD, Caviars in Raid, NVidia 9800 (maybe 2). Yeah, it will kick *** :)

starbase1
06-02-2008, 07:37 AM
Thing is, when I look at all those super clever water cooling, solid gold heat pipe, turbo nutter fan type systems, I always think "Why not just spend that money on a faster CPU in the first place?!?!"

AbnRanger
06-02-2008, 09:03 AM
Matt, I'm thinking of buying a water cooled system of HP, but they only have it with Opterons in their workstations.

I'll probably build my own system by the end of the year. Trying to do Dual Quad, watercooled, 2x 30" LCD, Caviars in Raid, NVidia 9800 (maybe 2). Yeah, it will kick *** :)Intel is supposed to have 6-8 core cpu's then...

Titus
06-02-2008, 09:31 AM
Thing is, when I look at all those super clever water cooling, solid gold heat pipe, turbo nutter fan type systems, I always think "Why not just spend that money on a faster CPU in the first place?!?!"

My same thinking :thumbsup:.

No, I don't OC my computers, the last time I did it was with a 586.

COBRASoft
06-02-2008, 09:41 AM
I would agree on spending more money for better or faster CPU. The problem is, when you go dual, you have to pay that amount twice :)

6 or 8 cores... hmmm, that sounds even more interesting. Worth the wait ;)

mattclary
06-02-2008, 10:15 AM
Thing is, when I look at all those super clever water cooling, solid gold heat pipe, turbo nutter fan type systems, I always think "Why not just spend that money on a faster CPU in the first place?!?!"

Let it not be said that you are not a very wise man, Starbase. :bowdown:

ericsmith
06-02-2008, 10:46 AM
Thing is, when I look at all those super clever water cooling, solid gold heat pipe, turbo nutter fan type systems, I always think "Why not just spend that money on a faster CPU in the first place?!?!"

What about those that already have the fastest processor available and want to push it even further?

I have one of the new 9650 quad cores and was able to crank it up to 3.5 just by changing the multiplier without breaking a sweat (I've since brought it down to 3.3, but that's just because I want to fine tune the FSB and vcore settings when I have more time to put into it).

But really, your math kind of breaks down anyways.

The difference between a 6600 running at 2.4 ghz and a 6850 running at 3.0 ghz is just over $800. A good air-cooling tower like the Thermalright 120 is only around $60, and that would probably be enough to get the 6600 up to 3.0 ghz. A slightly more advanced peltier system like I got is around $100, and that could probably get the 6600 upwards of 3.4 ghz. Even a full-on water cooling system might be in the $250 - $300 range, and there's no telling how far that could take you.

Eric

AbnRanger
06-02-2008, 10:51 AM
Thing is, when I look at all those super clever water cooling, solid gold heat pipe, turbo nutter fan type systems, I always think "Why not just spend that money on a faster CPU in the first place?!?!"That would seem logical on the surface, but generally to get a $300 Quad CPU to perform like a $900 one, OC'ing with a $100 water-cooling setup doesn't sound so crazy after all...
EDIT: Eric beat me to the punch...

meatycheesyboy
06-02-2008, 10:54 AM
Thing is, when I look at all those super clever water cooling, solid gold heat pipe, turbo nutter fan type systems, I always think "Why not just spend that money on a faster CPU in the first place?!?!"

Thing is, you don't need any super expensive water cooling etc. So, you don't spend the extra money.

I'm running an $80 Intel E4300 (stock 1.8GHz) at 3 GHz using nothing more than my stock motherboard and the retail fan that came with the processor.

Also, some people just like to tinker with stuff, buying the fastest from the start isn't much fun if you're a person who just likes to mess with stuff.

Captain Obvious
06-02-2008, 11:09 AM
Thing is, when I look at all those super clever water cooling, solid gold heat pipe, turbo nutter fan type systems, I always think "Why not just spend that money on a faster CPU in the first place?!?!"
Considering that with that sort of cooling, even the cheapest CPU in the lineup will overclock to speeds beyond what you can actually buy at all, the advantage becomes obvious. Besides, it's mostly a hobby to some people. Extreme overclockers overclock for the sake of it, rather than because they needd the performance.

As for the rest of us, even low-end cooling systems usually give you a fair bit of overclocking leeway. On my old PC, I had about 15 worth of cooling equipment and still managed to get a 50 % overclock (from 1.86 GHz to over 2.6 GHz).

Qexit
06-02-2008, 01:13 PM
Thanks to Asus finally supplying me with a replacement motherboard, I now have a pair of nearly identical systems to run all of my interesting software on. I fall into the "Yes, I run overclocked, and am confident in it." group but like several others on here I've opted for reliable and stable rather than trying to squeeze the absolute maximum O/C out of my hardware. Thanks to a really good deal l came across last year, my cpus of choice are both Core 2 Extreme QX6700s. They aren't the low power versions though, so they do get a bit warm when O/Ced. However, to go from the stock 2.66GHz to a rock solid and stable 3.2GHz was a simple matter of increasing the cpu multiplier from 10 to 12. No tinkering with FSB or voltage needed :thumbsup: The really nice thing about Intels Extreme cpus is that they all have unlocked multipliers, so you can speed up the cpu without having to worry about whether the other components can handle any FSB changes. One quad core running at 3.2GHz is nice, two is even better :D One of these on its own is rendering five times faster than the 3.2GHz Dual Core cpu I had before which is just amazing

starbase1
06-02-2008, 04:00 PM
What about those that already have the fastest processor available and want to push it even further?

Eric

Well, and I am quite serious here, I'd be inclined to ask if a second PC, for rendering would be a more economic option. When you start pushing the limits of the most powerful hardware, the price goes up so steeply for the extra horsepower, (and comes down so fast as the bleeding edge moves on), you are paying hugely more per MIP.

And in 6 months time, the price will be a LOT lower...

starbase1
06-02-2008, 04:04 PM
Qexit, Good point about the unlocked multipliers on the Extreme chips. :) I forgot to mention that during my ramblings above. I'm still looking at those for upgrading to a Quad, now that prices have come down considerably since last year. They were crazy expensive when I bought my E6600.

They have come down a lot... I want to play with one of the 60 core monsters!

IMI
06-02-2008, 04:17 PM
I haven't, not yet, although my board, CPU and RAM are all more or less up to it.
I voted "no and I'm not interested", but that's only for this machine, which I built last October.
I've been studying up on it and am planning on building an Intel machine around September, and I'll be buying parts based on overclockability, if that's a word.
I've been tempted to give it a go, but I don't think my cpu fan is up for it in this box and it's pretty quick and very stable as it is. I'm looking at water cooling for the next machine.

Qexit
06-02-2008, 04:53 PM
They have come down a lot... I want to play with one of the 60 core monsters!Surprisingly, here in the UK the QX6700 Extreme is still ludicrously expensive:

http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/ProductInfo.asp?WebProductID=491970

That's only about 50 less than last December !! Fortunately, I got mine for a bit less than that and they through in a complete PC with it for free :thumbsup::D

Hopper
06-02-2008, 05:07 PM
I overclock my Q6600 to 3.4GHz and stable with ThermalTake 760i cooler. I can go to 3.6, but Windows freaks out. Ubuntu and OSX doesn't seem to mind at all. It runs at 45c idle and 65-70c at full load.

Stooch
06-03-2008, 01:38 AM
the biggest threat in OC systems is not necessarily the cpu but ram errors. overclockers beware and make sure your ram is up to the task (by doing a serious burn in). you can corrupt files and not even realise it. i used to be hardcore with this stuff back in the gaming days where reinstalling windows or losing files wasnt taht big of a deal. but now im cautious and prefer a quiet computer. So i voted "just a bit" as long as my undervolted fans can cope.

rakker16mm
06-03-2008, 01:45 AM
Thing is, when I look at all those super clever water cooling, solid gold heat pipe, turbo nutter fan type systems, I always think "Why not just spend that money on a faster CPU in the first place?!?!"

That's always been my thoughts on the subject. Plus if the CPU was capable of running that fast reliably I would think the manufacturer would have shipped it clocked that way.

meatycheesyboy
06-03-2008, 09:40 AM
That's always been my thoughts on the subject. Plus if the CPU was capable of running that fast reliably I would think the manufacturer would have shipped it clocked that way.

All the CPUs a manufacturer makes are basically the same, they ship them based on what's selling at the time. If the mid range CPUs outsell the high end ones 4:1, it doesn't matter how many high end ones you put into the market, they aren't selling so instead they just lower the multiplier and label them as the mid range ones.

Unless of course they have a really high defect rate, then they may not have a choice but to put them into the market as a lower end product. AMD's new tri-core processors are a good example of this. Their manufacturing process of quad cores was so bad and they got so many with a defective core they created a whole new product just to sell the defects.

oobievision
06-10-2008, 02:22 AM
Mine came Factory Overclocked. im running a AMD Athlon DualCore 2.1ghz clocked at 5.9ghz Fan cooled

sammael
06-11-2008, 12:27 AM
I have an E6600 running at 3ghz just on the standard heatsink... I just figured why not? It was running stable at 3.2 with a max load temp of about 45o c but after I upgraded to 4gb ram from 2gb that seemed to become unstable (same dual channel ram). I must try cranking it up again since vista sp1 has been released and see if that makes any difference. so: Yes, I run overclocked, and am confident in it.

prospector
06-11-2008, 12:33 AM
Tim Taylor says;
"If you can't tweak it...what's the point?"
ArrrrArrrrArrrr

Qexit
06-11-2008, 02:57 AM
Mine came Factory Overclocked. im running a AMD Athlon DualCore 2.1ghz clocked at 5.9ghz Fan cooledI have to be honest and say I find it very hard to believe that you are running a cpu at nearly three times its official speed with just regular air cooling. 2.9GHz I could accept but 5.9GHz ? Are you sure ?

IMI
06-11-2008, 03:13 AM
Unless of course they have a really high defect rate, then they may not have a choice but to put them into the market as a lower end product. AMD's new tri-core processors are a good example of this. Their manufacturing process of quad cores was so bad and they got so many with a defective core they created a whole new product just to sell the defects.


Are you serious about this?
I've been a die-hard AMD fan since '99, and all the PC's I've built have had AMD's. My current LW box has the AMD 3200 dual core "Windsor" 64 bit @ 3.1 ghz, and I have to say I'm quite happy with its performance with not only LW, but everything else, including my games.
When they came out with their new quad core, I *almost* bought it and a new mobo, but after reading reviews, I've pretty much decided to abandon AMD altogether. Too little progress, too slowly, it seems. I'm *almost* certain my next PC will be an Intel quad core.
If AMD is in fact having such problems and doing such things, that pretty much clinches the deal for me.

Captain Obvious
06-11-2008, 04:37 AM
Oh no, they all do that. Cell, for example, is built with something like eight or nine "cores," but your average PS3 has one or two less than that actually working.

GPUs, same deal. A low-end GPU with fewer processing units is usually the same thing as a higher-end one, except some of the units were broken and turned off. There have been plenty of hacks that let you turn on the disabled ones, with varying results. Sometimes you turn your $50 GPU into a $500 one, sometimes you turn it into one with massive rendering errors.

Pavlov
06-11-2008, 04:58 AM
i have 7 Quadcores 6600 @ 2.4, they all run smoothly at 3.0 GHZ. Just chose the right MB to do this and its fully reliable, some of these are nearly almost at 100% cpu for 1 year now.
I have also some 8 cores but i dont dare to overclock these... imho it's safer to try it on simple technology.


paolo

prospector
06-11-2008, 08:24 AM
I have also some 8 cores but i dont dare to overclock these...
com'on, get some cahonies :D
they should run at 9GHz :thumbsup:

oobievision
06-11-2008, 11:17 AM
I have to be honest and say I find it very hard to believe that you are running a cpu at nearly three times its official speed with just regular air cooling. 2.9GHz I could accept but 5.9GHz ? Are you sure ?

yes im sure and no its not a standard cooling fan its pretty massive. that and I have 4 other fans in my rig yeah I over heat every now and again, once I see my temp hitting about 92 degrees ferenheit I usually have to shut down for a while. Im using the AMD utilities to track how overclocked my CPU is. It really depends on what im doin. lightwave renders dont really heat my system up. mostly the games do.

oobievision
06-11-2008, 11:19 AM
Still waiting on sony to develop their Cell CPU for Pc. 9 cores. PS3 runs 9 cores 1 master and 8 slave cpu's and with a combined bus rate they equal out to 4mb on bus speed. the reason the PS3 doesnt use all 9 is cause of the game developer. they have to pretty much have to manually write the code to tell the system when to use each core.

Qexit
06-11-2008, 01:05 PM
yes im sure and no its not a standard cooling fan its pretty massive. that and I have 4 other fans in my rig yeah I over heat every now and again, once I see my temp hitting about 92 degrees ferenheit I usually have to shut down for a while. Im using the AMD utilities to track how overclocked my CPU is. Hm, I'd believe a CPU screen grab from CPU-Z, http://www.cpuid.com/, but otherwise I have to remain sceptical even with a big fan. Sorry :stumped:

prospector
06-11-2008, 01:34 PM
Mine came Factory Overclocked. im running a AMD Athlon DualCore 2.1ghz clocked at 5.9ghz Fan cooled
That would be a record overclock with just fan, and I haven't read about that anywhere.

jin choung
06-11-2008, 01:39 PM
Oh no, they all do that. Cell, for example, is built with something like eight or nine "cores," but your average PS3 has one or two less than that actually working.

GPUs, same deal. A low-end GPU with fewer processing units is usually the same thing as a higher-end one, except some of the units were broken and turned off. There have been plenty of hacks that let you turn on the disabled ones, with varying results. Sometimes you turn your $50 GPU into a $500 one, sometimes you turn it into one with massive rendering errors.

right, and that's how they bin different processor speeds too. if it can't pass muster as a 3ghz chip, does it go at 2.6ghz? yes it does.... boom, 2.6ghz chip.

and that's why most chips these days are so overclockable.... conservative evaluation combined with better fab....

for the record, i'm ocing a 2ghz (e2180) to 3ghz on air. best $78 i ever spent on a processor.

jin

Hopper
06-15-2008, 03:30 PM
...once I see my temp hitting about 92 degrees ferenheit I usually have to shut down for a while.
That's funny, considering that's barely over the start-up idle temp for most CPU's. If you have a CPU that has to be shut down at 33-34C, that would pretty much be defective.

jin choung
06-15-2008, 04:16 PM
haha... yeah, convert your temps in C and then look at the manufacturer's website for operational temps... you shouldn't have anything to even blink at until waaaaaaay after....

jin

prospector
06-17-2008, 12:39 AM
once I see my temp hitting about 92 degrees ferenheit I usually have to shut down for a while.

I don't have an of those lighted/blinking fans or stuff like that, so when I see glowing light coming from the seams in my box, then I know CPU temp is just about there.:)