That's why I get big sinks with quiet-at-most-loads PWM fans (typically Noctua), and only buy cases with easy-access intake filters (most recently, a Fractal R5). But yes, it would still be nice to know. The answer would probably once again tamp down my occasional urge to buy a CLWC.Anyway, the real question for builders is how much cooling you need, before PBO plateaus. It would be nice to know, so you don't waste money or create a machine that's louder or more of a dust trap than it needs to be.
The mainboard-based auto-overclocking is not dynamic nor based on additional precise factors, plus data from a bajillion sensors. The mainboard auto-overclock is just trying what a user might do manually, tweaking voltage and clock multiplier upward until it hits a limit (often crashing in the process and sometimes even remembering the last might-be-stable-who-knows setting). So yeah they're not even close.Not quite. Asus has a built in one that sets clocks and voltages and then tests and will continue to do so until it hits what it feels is stable. At least the newer ones do.
I am not knocking the software. I just think the most efficient way to overclock is with manual. What would be nice is if they would give us the ability to alter the boost settings so we could overclock the all core boost but keep the single core boost or even alter it to higher speeds if it can handle it. That would be ideal.
That isn't the point. The point is that the fully automatic clocking is actually better than manual overclocking in many cases. Especially with AO enabled.I never said they did not have manual overclocking. However when you manually overclock you typically kill the boost levels, check THs review where they got it to X clock speed but single threaded suffered since it was lower than the default boost rate yet higher than PBO+ would go for all core.