Does it make sense to not overclock? (i5)

courtney4

Distinguished
Jan 31, 2006
190
0
18,680
I've never overclocked before, but it seems like it has become much more popular since I last decided to overhaul my computer. Stock speeds of 3.3 being overclocked to 4.8Ghz? Craaazy.

Anyway, I'm currently at a dilemma between the i5 2500 and 2500k. Although there is only a £5 difference between them, I'm struggling to decide because of the following.

- Assuming I use a stock fan, I believe I will not be able to overclock very much anyway.
- Based on this assumption, to overclock I would need to buy a custom CPU cooler (~£25) and probably some thermal paste too?

This means that to get any extra performance I would actually be paying in the region of £30+.

My question is whether or not it is worth it. I always thought that overclocking was lots of effort for little reward. i.e. you'd spend a lot of effort on cooling for slightly faster speeds. However, spending £30 to go from 3.3Ghz to 4.4Ghz seems like a good investment and It would be silly not to consider it? I know I will probably not notice the difference in games, but I'd like to think It will make a difference.


 
Its worth it for a fiver even if you dont OC now you have the option in the future which can extend your rigs lifespan.

Even if you dont OC its always a good idea to get a nicer cooler decent ones range from £17 top out at around £25 for 212 EVO anything more is needless unless you want to OC extreme.If £ is an issue though just run it at stock with stock cooler and buy a cooler later on then OC
 
In another year, your processor is going to be slower compared to the newest ones. However, if you overclock you can match that new processors performance. This saves you at least $300 on an upgrade.
 
OC or no OC, I recommend you to get a decent aftermarket cooler like 212 Plus or EVO. It makes the PC run silently and cool. For CPU performancewise, I've never OC'd, so I'm not the right person to opin here, but I kinda regret buying non-K 2400 because of no future OC capability. At this time, I have no problem with the current spec, but in 3 years, I might. Probably I will have another hard time convincing my wife why I need to rebuild a whole new system. With K version, I would just OC the CPU and change graphics card.
 
^
You may not need to overclock now, but you may need/want to when the technology is a little outdated/slow.

You can always buy an upgraded fan later as well, once you decide to overclock.

It does depend on what games you are playing, whether they rely on GPU or CPU more than the other.

I would spend the extra $ on K-series.
 
Although I am a newb to PC building, I agree that it's very worth the extra for the ability to OC later. You will have this machine for a long time, and OCing can make it keep up with required specs for longer.
 
Thanks for the replies and advice! Looks like I'll go for the 2500k. If I can afford an extra £20 after I'm finished I can always buy a better cooler and go from there.

I like the sound of reduced noise as well (if you'll pardon the pun)
 
IMHO, your instincts are correct. Overclocking has become little more than a pissing contest among the immature gamers of the world who would rather compete with each other outside of their chosen game rather than inside. It involves a little money, some experimenting and some risk to equipment for little actual gain to gaming enjoyment. In fact I doubt the performance improvements can be perceived outside a laboratory. Case mods are another waste of time. I would, however buy the "k" processor in case the technology changes and you have more options.