Do I need to OC for Gaming?

[LegitD0nuT]

I'm planning on getting the i7 4790k which has a base clock of 4.0MHz. Do I really need to overclock it? Planning on running fairly high quality games like FC4 on ultra.

 

[MeteorsRaining]

Absolutely no, the stock speed is enough to max out any game CPU wise. That said, it's still a nice thing to do to get a couple more frames, but again, it's not a compulsion.

 

[Xyos]

Well it depends on the game honestly. Some games are very CPU bound (like source games for instance), and an overclock could show a significant improvement.

 

[Calculagator]

Well it depends on the game honestly. Some games are very CPU bound (like source games for instance), and an overclock could show a significant improvement.

Source games are only cpu bound because they don't use resources: if the game is already running at 200 fps, then increasing frame rate won't improve how the game looks or responds in any way.

Overclock if it sounds like fun and you want to experiment. You will not notice any improvement in actual game performance. As far as need, look at windows resource meter (or similar) while you are gaming: If your CPU never reaches 100% load or very close to it then overclocking won't help.

 

[Xyos]

Well it depends on the game honestly. Some games are very CPU bound (like source games for instance), and an overclock could show a significant improvement.

Source games are only cpu bound because they don't use resources: if the game is already running at 200 fps, then increasing frame rate won't improve how the game looks or responds in any way.

Overclock if it sounds like fun and you want to experiment. You will not notice any improvement in actual game performance. As far as need, look at windows resource meter (or similar) while you are gaming: If your CPU never reaches 100% load or very close to it then overclocking won't help.

This is not true at all, please OP do not listen to this guy. You CAN get tangible results from overclocking in gaming. There are plenty of benchmarks to prove it. Here is a video benchmark timestamped, showing an increase in AVERAGE FPS of 7 from a non-overclocked CPU to an overclocked CPU in demanding games:

http://youtu.be/o5y-HkuyIs8?t=2m44s

7 fps increase AVERAGE is a huge boost. Like I said it DEPENDS ON THE GAME. This same video farcry 3 only increased by 1 fps average. Other games its even larger like 10+fps. Just because a cpu is not at 100% load does not mean there is no need to overclock.....

 

[MeteorsRaining]

Well it depends on the game honestly. Some games are very CPU bound (like source games for instance), and an overclock could show a significant improvement.

Source games are only cpu bound because they don't use resources: if the game is already running at 200 fps, then increasing frame rate won't improve how the game looks or responds in any way.

Overclock if it sounds like fun and you want to experiment. You will not notice any improvement in actual game performance. As far as need, look at windows resource meter (or similar) while you are gaming: If your CPU never reaches 100% load or very close to it then overclocking won't help.

This is not true at all, please OP do not listen to this guy. You CAN get tangible results from overclocking in gaming. There are plenty of benchmarks to prove it. Here is a video benchmark timestamped, showing an increase in AVERAGE FPS of 7 from a non-overclocked CPU to an overclocked CPU in demanding games:

http://youtu.be/o5y-HkuyIs8?t=2m44s

7 fps increase AVERAGE is a huge boost. Like I said it DEPENDS ON THE GAME. This same video farcry 3 only increased by 1 fps average. Other games its even larger like 10+fps. Just because a cpu is not at 100% load does not mean there is no need to overclock.....

That is with an i5 2500k, genius. 4790k can get to 4.4Ghz simply via Turbo Boost, which is not OCing. Plus i7 has HyperThreads.

 

[Calculagator]

Well it depends on the game honestly. Some games are very CPU bound (like source games for instance), and an overclock could show a significant improvement.

Source games are only cpu bound because they don't use resources: if the game is already running at 200 fps, then increasing frame rate won't improve how the game looks or responds in any way.

Overclock if it sounds like fun and you want to experiment. You will not notice any improvement in actual game performance. As far as need, look at windows resource meter (or similar) while you are gaming: If your CPU never reaches 100% load or very close to it then overclocking won't help.

This is not true at all, please OP do not listen to this guy. You CAN get tangible results from overclocking in gaming. There are plenty of benchmarks to prove it. Here is a video benchmark timestamped, showing an increase in AVERAGE FPS of 7 from a non-overclocked CPU to an overclocked CPU in demanding games:

http://youtu.be/o5y-HkuyIs8?t=2m44s

7 fps increase AVERAGE is a huge boost. Like I said it DEPENDS ON THE GAME. This same video farcry 3 only increased by 1 fps average. Other games its even larger like 10+fps. Just because a cpu is not at 100% load does not mean there is no need to overclock.....

That is with an i5 2500k, genius. 4790k can get to 4.4Ghz simply via Turbo Boost, which is not OCing. Plus i7 has HyperThreads.

Exactly. If the OP were getting a low to medium end CPU then overclocking would absolutely help, but that is not the case. Also the question was not whether or not it could improve performance at all, it was whether it was needed. It is absolutely not needed for an i7 4790k.

 

[Xyos]

Well it depends on the game honestly. Some games are very CPU bound (like source games for instance), and an overclock could show a significant improvement.

Source games are only cpu bound because they don't use resources: if the game is already running at 200 fps, then increasing frame rate won't improve how the game looks or responds in any way.

Overclock if it sounds like fun and you want to experiment. You will not notice any improvement in actual game performance. As far as need, look at windows resource meter (or similar) while you are gaming: If your CPU never reaches 100% load or very close to it then overclocking won't help.

This is not true at all, please OP do not listen to this guy. You CAN get tangible results from overclocking in gaming. There are plenty of benchmarks to prove it. Here is a video benchmark timestamped, showing an increase in AVERAGE FPS of 7 from a non-overclocked CPU to an overclocked CPU in demanding games:

http://youtu.be/o5y-HkuyIs8?t=2m44s

7 fps increase AVERAGE is a huge boost. Like I said it DEPENDS ON THE GAME. This same video farcry 3 only increased by 1 fps average. Other games its even larger like 10+fps. Just because a cpu is not at 100% load does not mean there is no need to overclock.....

That is with an i5 2500k, genius. 4790k can get to 4.4Ghz simply via Turbo Boost, which is not OCing. Plus i7 has HyperThreads.

Exactly. If the OP were getting a low to medium end CPU then overclocking would absolutely help, but that is not the case. Also the question was not whether or not it could improve performance at all, it was whether it was needed. It is absolutely not needed for an i7 4790k.

Ah the classic users who won't admit their ignorance and fault. "Not needed" is subjective, the fact that its a different CPU is irrelevant, its the PRINCIPLE that's important "genius". If you are running a game like Crysis 3/BF4 maxed out at 1440p/4k (hell even 1080p) and it struggles to maintain 60 fps a 7 fps increase in average fps is the difference between 60 fps gaming and below. You got called out on your IGNORANCE and now are scrambling for excuses "oh course with his cpu it's not needed". Ya ok, I provide hard facts of real world benchmark results you provide speculation.

HERE ARE SOME MORE HARD FACTS of the EXACT cpu model in question, showing multiple games benchmarked overclocked and non-overclocked, showing a 2-7 fps increase depending on the game. Like I said all depends on the game, and higher FPS is ALWAYS BETTER:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k/4

Get effing rekt, don't respond to me again with speculation and opinion bring some facts to backup your massive ignorance.

 

[MeteorsRaining]

Xyos, you're comparing a 2 generation old i5 with the newest and most powerful Hyperthreaded quad core i7 available. Not quite fair IMO. And claiming Youtube as a credible source doesn't help either. Your arguement is fundamentally wrong, with an i7, you won't be CPU bound, rather only GPU wise. Sourcing a benchmark claiming considerable performance increase with 4790k using same GPU in same game will be good enough to be taken as a relevant proof.

 

[Xyos]

Xyos, you're comparing a 2 generation old i5 with the newest and most powerful Hyperthreaded quad core i7 available. Not quite fair IMO. And claiming Youtube as a credible source doesn't help either. Your arguement is fundamentally wrong, with an i7, you won't be CPU bound, rather only GPU wise. Sourcing a benchmark claiming considerable performance increase with 4790k using same GPU in same game will be good enough to be taken as a relevant proof.

...If the youtube video was not evidence enough My followup post showed the exact cpu in question from AnandTech, a reputable computer site. The OP is looking for a high end gaming PC, overclocking goes hand in hand with that, it it does have tangible results.

 

[MeteorsRaining]

I do not see an increase of more than 1.5-2 FPS in ANY game, please name the game you're talking about. Also, straight from the article you linked:

It is pretty clear that overclocking the CPU has little-to-no affect at these quality settings.

 

[melonhead]

at some point, frame increases stops helping. overclocking can improve frames, but once the frame increase is redundant, then it is pointless to OC.

the 4790k will run dayz mod, may times, over 100 fps on my system. in instances where it doesnt, and is 70, 80, 90 fps, there is no significant help, or noticable difference that i get from the frame differences at these times.

now, going from my old system where it would struggle to get 20 70% of the time, when i would get 30 frames or higher, there is significant difference and noticiable help that an OC would give.

if you get the 4790k, you can overclock if you want. keep in mind that it may not produce any additional benefit to you (depends on what frames you are getting to begin with before the OC and what the OC produces in extra frames).

 

[LegitD0nuT]

Absolutely no, the stock speed is enough to max out any game CPU wise. That said, it's still a nice thing to do to get a couple more frames, but again, it's not a compulsion.

Alright, If it is going to be fairly easy to overclock I might as well. Not to mention I won't be using processor graphics because I have a pretty good graphics card - 980 Strix. Thank you!

 

[MeteorsRaining]

No worries.

 

[LegitD0nuT]

No worries.

Alright, since its somewhat of a "luck of the draw" whether people respond to a forum post or not, Do you think there is a huge difference between two of these monitors ( http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236327&cm_re=1ms_monitor-_-24-236-327-_-Product ) versus a faster refreshing monitor? I don't really understand the refreshing rate/etc on monitors. On another forum website somebody said "I would also consider a faster refreshing monitor, id go for a 120hz if your wanting 1080p or 60hz if you want 1440p. A 980 will push more than double 60fps so a 60hz would be limiting the gpu somewhat even on say battlefield 4 maximum settings a single card when i had my 1080p monitor did somewhat 130-160fps easily." All I heard was jibberish xD. Is there a MASSIVE quality difference I should know or anything else? Not like I'm going to be editing movies... If anything I might get into streaming/youtube videos/etc but even the best youtubers don't have amazing rigs.

 

[MeteorsRaining]

The Frame refresh rate is not related to quality. A higher refresh monitor can display more frames in a second, thus providing 'better' gameplay. FPS games in general benefit from more frame refreshes. Quality wise both are generally similar, unless the 60Hz is IPS, in that case IPS will be better for color reproduction, while regular TN monitors can provide 144Hz refresh rates which helps in gaming.

 

[melonhead]

i have always heard, and gone off of higher refresh rates being best for gaming. refresh rates is basically how often a screen refreshes the image it produces. high refresh rate, the more often it refreshes that image, and is ultimately better for gaming. ==just to keep it simple

 

[LegitD0nuT]

So it wouldn't really be that much of a difference? I suppose refresh rate wont be that much of a difference then.

 

[melonhead]

i have heard that it makes a huge difference. i havent personally seen it myself for gaming, so i cannot confirm yes or no.

 

[Derp64]

After my first go at overclocking a 4790k my advice would be make absolutely sure you get a sufficient water cooling unit such as the H100i if you plan to OC to 4.8GHz or higher and take careful care to seat it evenly and snugly on the processor then remove excess paste from the H100i after you've burned it in.

For a 4790k you wont see as huge of an improvement in overclocking as something such as the 4690k, so if you're going to overclock either way and you're only going to be gaming then the 4690k may be better for you since it's a bit cheaper.

When I did my initial stock runs the 4790k paired with a GTX 970 had absolutely no problems running Far Cry 4 on max settings.

Bottom line if you're gonna overclock it anyways you mind as well get a 4690k with a H100i or equivalent cooling. If you're not gonna overclock it then just go with 4790k and a Hyper 212 EVO. Overclocking the graphics card will almost always get you a better increase in performance vs overclocking the processor. I recommend buying your graphics card at stock speeds with a good cooler if you're planning to OC it, such as the ACX 2.0 from EVGA or the Windforce from Gigabyte.

 

[Derp64]

Also getting a 120/144Hz refresh rate monitor will only help you if you're playing games where high reaction times are required, and only if your graphics card is capable of producing that many frames per second in the given game. comparing 30FPS to 60FPS is a huge improvement in the smoothness of the gameplay, but not so much of a huge improvement as 60FPS vs 120FPS. Higher refresh rates are ultimately better, but you're more prone to stuttering when the FPS drops than you would be on a 60Hz monitor, which can in the end translate to less smooth gameplay and result in the opposite of what you desired. Screen tearing also becomes more of a problem at higher refresh rates from what I understand.

 

[LegitD0nuT]

After my first go at overclocking a 4790k my advice would be make absolutely sure you get a sufficient water cooling unit such as the H100i if you plan to OC to 4.8GHz or higher and take careful care to seat it evenly and snugly on the processor then remove excess paste from the H100i after you've burned it in.

For a 4790k you wont see as huge of an improvement in overclocking as something such as the 4690k, so if you're going to overclock either way and you're only going to be gaming then the 4690k may be better for you since it's a bit cheaper.

When I did my initial stock runs the 4790k paired with a GTX 970 had absolutely no problems running Far Cry 4 on max settings.

Bottom line if you're gonna overclock it anyways you mind as well get a 4690k with a H100i or equivalent cooling. If you're not gonna overclock it then just go with 4790k and a Hyper 212 EVO. Overclocking the graphics card will almost always get you a better increase in performance vs overclocking the processor. I recommend buying your graphics card at stock speeds with a good cooler if you're planning to OC it, such as the ACX 2.0 from EVGA or the Windforce from Gigabyte.

Sorry, what about the paste? So after I use the cooler for some time once the thermal paste has set/burned in I should take a towel or something to remove it?

Also, I have the 980 Strix for my graphics card

Graphics Card:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121905

I already have all the pieces in but I'm planning on returning the Intel Single 140 fan, which is liquid cooling, for the H105i

Intel Liquid Cooling - What I have now:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835203017&cm_re=intel_liquid_cooling-_-35-203-017-_-Product

 

[melonhead]

Xyos...the link you posted is for the APU part of the review-- http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review...

i assume that you meant to link to a different part of that review?

 

[Derp64]

After my first go at overclocking a 4790k my advice would be make absolutely sure you get a sufficient water cooling unit such as the H100i if you plan to OC to 4.8GHz or higher and take careful care to seat it evenly and snugly on the processor then remove excess paste from the H100i after you've burned it in.

For a 4790k you wont see as huge of an improvement in overclocking as something such as the 4690k, so if you're going to overclock either way and you're only going to be gaming then the 4690k may be better for you since it's a bit cheaper.

When I did my initial stock runs the 4790k paired with a GTX 970 had absolutely no problems running Far Cry 4 on max settings.

Bottom line if you're gonna overclock it anyways you mind as well get a 4690k with a H100i or equivalent cooling. If you're not gonna overclock it then just go with 4790k and a Hyper 212 EVO. Overclocking the graphics card will almost always get you a better increase in performance vs overclocking the processor. I recommend buying your graphics card at stock speeds with a good cooler if you're planning to OC it, such as the ACX 2.0 from EVGA or the Windforce from Gigabyte.

Sorry, what about the paste? So after I use the cooler for some time once the thermal paste has set/burned in I should take a towel or something to remove it?

Also, I have the 980 Strix for my graphics card

Graphics Card:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121905

I already have all the pieces in but I'm planning on returning the Intel Single 140 fan, which is liquid cooling, for the H105i

Intel Liquid Cooling - What I have now:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835203017&cm_re=intel_liquid_cooling-_-35-203-017-_-Product

After the paste sets in if you're using the stock paste and there's a large amount of it applied to the cooler(Like the big square of it on the H100i) you should use a durable paper towel and isopropyl alcohol to remove the excess paste from the cooler and just leave whatever is already set in on the processor then carefully reseat the cooler. I've read that it's best to completely remove and reapply the paste about every 6 months to keep the lowest temperatures, which is probably about the same time you'll wanna dust out everything and do general system maintenance anyways.

You would be completely fine with a GTX 970 if you're only going to be gaming at 1920x1080 at 60Hz though. The difference in frames per second between it and the GTX 980 is about 10% and I'm getting 80+ FPS in most games on very high or ultra settings with my stock EVGA ACX 2.0 GTX 970.

Here's a couple informative guides regarding thermal paste..

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2009/02/16/all-about-tim/1
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/333968-28-thermal-paste-removal-installation-guide

The trick to it is to have just enough so that the heatsink/water block makes full contact with the processor. It's only purpose is to fill the gaps on rough/uneven surfaces and using more than necessary can increase temperatures.