CPU Overclocking Guide: How (and Why) to Tweak Your Processor

[Cryio]

PS: The thermal threshold for AMD CPUs is actually 72 degrees Celcius, not 62. You can see this in AMD overdrive.

 

[mapesdhs]

This article promises to explain the "why" of overclocking. Where is it? Personally I think it is a waste of time.

Why do you think it's a waste of time? You've expressed an opinion, but no rationale.

Most people who oc likely do it primarily as a means to some free extra performance (I do), others for fun, some for both. Thus, your claim it is a waste of time by definition could only be true for yourself, because everyone else does have a reason for doing it (45% faster performance in the case of the 2700K systems I build).


demoth, or use a 3930K instead, even less cost, 4.8GHz no problem, and then you have six cores, with more PCIe lanes than an entry HW-E/BW-E.

Ian.

 

[TJ Hooker]

[Most people who oc likely do it primarily as a means to some free extra performance (I do), others for fun, some for both. Thus, your claim it is a waste of time by definition could only be true for yourself, because everyone else does have a reason for doing it (45% faster performance in the case of the 2700K systems I build).

But it's not free. With Intel, you're paying extra for an unlocked CPU, for an unlocked mobo, and for an aftermarket cooler. And you're lucky if you to get more than around a 20% performance boost out of it these days. I imagine there's people out there getting worse performance per dollar with an overclocked CPU, especially if you lose out on the silicon lottery.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a waste of time, but I would say that whether or not it's practical depends on the situation. For something like a gaming rig, where a locked i5/i7 is already sufficient and performance is so much more dependent on GPU than CPU, I'd question CPU overclocking's worth.

 

[rush21hit]

But it's not free. With Intel, you're paying extra for an unlocked CPU, for an unlocked mobo, and for an aftermarket cooler. And you're lucky if you to get more than around a 20% performance boost out of it these days. I imagine there's people out there getting worse performance per dollar with an overclocked CPU, especially if you lose out on the silicon lottery.

Right? The new tech while getting better performer, it also forsaken versatility unless you pay the cost. Back then at 775 and 1366 era and older, we can do minor BCLK tweaking for a bit more boost.
While it's not quite a lot as with the stuff that actually support it, it were still pretty much effortless to get another 100-300mhz more from your CPU while still maintain stability back then. Heck, I remember going 2,7 with stock cooler with E2160 simply by tweaking BCLK settings.
Nowadays, we have to accept our place as we buy the CPU and motherboard.
Pretty smart business strategy now, eh?

 

[enterprise24]

My delidded i5-6500 OC to 5Ghz 24/7 stable. That is insane 56% OC headroom. It also bring memory to 3751Mhz. This is the very best 200$ CPU from Intel. Performance exceed i7-6700K with some OC like 4.4-4.5Ghz in many benchmark.

 

[mapesdhs]

But it's not free. With Intel, you're paying extra for an unlocked CPU, for an unlocked mobo, and for an aftermarket cooler. ...

Read my posts in other threads; that's why I've been rather vocal in the value of earlier products on the used market like the 3930K. 😀

Btw, the top-end CPUs don't come with a cooler anyway.

For something like a gaming rig, where a locked i5/i7 is already sufficient and performance is so much more dependent on GPU than CPU, I'd question CPU overclocking's worth.

That depends entirely on the game, resolution, detail, any mods used, etc. It may not help much for some games, but it certainly does for others, and plenty of people use their systems for tasks other than gaming, while some have different systems for different uses.

The added power consumption for those who choose to oc is of course a tradeoff, but even so (at least with older products) one can get a lot of extra performance with stock voltage oc'ing. Point being, for most it's a tradeoff that is more than worthwhile.

And besides, setup correctly in the BIOS, etc. with dynamic voltage oc'ing, the added power consumption only makes any difference when the CPU is under load anyway. Also, the price difference is so huge, the higher elec cost is highly unlikely to close the gap between how much the system cost vs. an all new build with the latest tech before one has decided to upgrade to something else anyway. My 2nd gaming PC has a 3930K on an R4E which saved about 500 UKP vs. a new X99 build, and that's not counting the RAM which at the time was waaay cheaper than the newly introduced & overpriced DDR4. I also saved on the case, SSD, PSU and cooler. The only new parts I bought were the GPU, fans and some misc items like drive trays and BDRW.

The benefits are lower now though with Intel's more recent products, something I've moaned about before.

Ian.

 

[ah]

My next built got be the E-chip with 28 PCIe lanes, and my OC target is 4GHz. Instead of spending your money on a 1080, U can save money towards the 6800K and an entry X99 mobo by opting for a 1070. Make no mistake, a 28 PCIe lanes gives U the option of 2 extras NVMe M.2, and 10 usable SATA ports.

 

[decko9999]

I need help overclocking my system.

I have a Sandy Bridge core i7-2600k with Gigabyte z77x-up5 TH motherboard. I tried to change the multiplier (to 42) and it saves successfully in the bios, but when looking in CPUZ or even the bios summary page, the speed doesn't change at all. I tried changing individual core turbo speeds too but nothing seems to change it. It's weird that the bios successfully saves the values though. Other bios settings seems to work like boot sequence or system date, etc. Just the overclocking settings don't seem to do anything. The only setting that seems to actually change the speed is changing BLCK.

However, if I use the Intel Extreme Tuning tool, it seems to work.

Any thoughts on what might be going on?

 

[decko9999]

I need help overclocking my system.

I have a Sandy Bridge core i7-2600k with Gigabyte z77x-up5 TH motherboard. I tried to change the multiplier (to 42) and it saves successfully in the bios, but when looking in CPUZ or even the bios summary page, the speed doesn't change at all. I tried changing individual core turbo speeds too but nothing seems to change it. It's weird that the bios successfully saves the values though. Other bios settings seems to work like boot sequence or system date, etc. Just the overclocking settings don't seem to do anything. The only setting that seems to actually change the speed is changing BLCK.

However, if I use the Intel Extreme Tuning tool, it seems to work.

Any thoughts on what might be going on?

 

[mapesdhs]

decko9999, I strongly urge you to follow Miahallen's SB oc'ing guide I referenced above. Also, check your BIOS for an option that turns on manual oc'ing abilities, I've seen Gigabyte boards in the past that need this done before one can start meddling with the low level stuff.