Guide: Overclocking AMD And Intel CPUs On A Budget

Status
Not open for further replies.

tacoslave

Distinguished
Apr 3, 2009
704
0
18,980
0
i like these "how to" articles but i still want to see the rest of the twkr article you promised us (quad crossfire 4890's) *sigh* a man can dream can't he?
 

snakeeater_za

Distinguished
Feb 12, 2009
42
0
18,530
0
Surely people on a budget (like me) would prefer their e5200 to last longer than a 'few months or hopefully a yr to 3?' i know i will upgrade prob in a year or so, so a yr would be fine, but a few months? Pfffft. my proc vid is 1.225 and for 3.33ghz i need a vcore of 1.385 in bios which at idle is 1.36ish. So although im nowhere near 4 at least i wont suffer from electromigration and have to fork out for a new cpu! Just my 2 cents
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Former Staff
[citation][nom]snakeeater_za[/nom]Surely people on a budget (like me) would prefer their e5200 to last longer than a 'few months or hopefully a yr to 3?' i know i will upgrade prob in a year or so, so a yr would be fine, but a few months? Pfffft. my proc vid is 1.225 and for 3.33ghz i need a vcore of 1.385 in bios which at idle is 1.36ish. So although im nowhere near 4 at least i wont suffer from electromigration and have to fork out for a new cpu! Just my 2 cents[/citation]

It's all a game of averages. Tom's Hardware hasn't accidently killed a processor by overclocking it in a while, though I'm sure a couple editors have intentionally done so to find the voltage limit. The problem is, once again, you can only look at averages.

3 months continuous use at 1.45 volts caused an E8500 to lose its OC stability. It had to be clocked down to become stable again, and lost much of its voltage tolerance. It wasn't destroyed however.

1.40 volts should be significantly safer than 1.45 volts, but until a few people report on how long their cores lasted at 1.40 volts its impossible to tell "how much safer", that is, how much longer it will last. All that's known is that it should last "significantly" longer, but whether that's 4 months (33% longer) or 30 months (10x longer) is the unanswerable question.
 

astrodudepsu

Distinguished
Jun 11, 2009
340
0
18,790
1
Good show mate.

I would have liked to see combined charts as a conclusion but that's a minor criticism.

I'm just wondering what the 'next-gen' E5200 (i.e. the intel people's OC'er) will turn out to be? Some flavor of i5 I assume, but who knows.
 
G

Guest

Guest
how is it that im running my q8200 at 3.04ghz stable at 1.25v? weird
 

JeanLuc

Distinguished
Oct 21, 2002
979
0
18,990
2
Link

"Intel’s value-priced Core 2 Quad Q8200 uses two of the same processor dice as the Pentium E5200....."

I don't know why you choose the Q8200 it's a notoriously bad overclocking chip, if you wanted a budget Intel Quad core that had room for overclocking you should have bought the Q6700/Q6600.
 
G

Guest

Guest
”Motherboard MSI P45 Diamond LGA-1366, P45/ICH10R, BIOS 1.5 (10/10/2009)”

MSI P45 Diamond is not LGA1366, but LGA775. LGA1366 is for Core i7 processors only, LGA1156 is for Core i5 and i7 (only dual channel DDR3-1333/1066). LGA775 is the old socket, for Celeron D, Celeron 4xx, Pentium Dual Core, Pentium 4, Core 2 Duo, Core 2 Quad.
 

da bahstid

Distinguished
Oct 10, 2008
35
0
18,530
0
No games? Like...none at all? Does anybody even overclock for reasons other than games?

Otherwise, pretty good article. Though perhaps a better choice for the Intel quad would have been a 9550...I thought they were under $250 by now. Same time, I guess the Q8200 does seem to be a more difficult overclocker...Intel may have intended this to be the case so as not to gut sales of their Q9000 series. And readers may as well know before jumping on a Q8200 thinking it'll overclock like an E5200.
 
G

Guest

Guest
It's nice to see a Tom's article that doesn't intentionally low-ball their AMD OC, I'm sick of seeing 3.6ghz PhenomII OCs when we all know they can do better. They could've picked a better Intel quad though, and I think the Intel dual-core OC may be a tad extreme, that's not going to last for daily use at 4.1ghz.

PS: Synthetic benchmarks should be outlawed until they fairly and accurately give an indication of real-world performance ;)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Wow, possibly thr most out of touch overclockers article ever. A 955? Come on, should have been a 945 non-black edition. Overclocking an unlocked CPU is easy. X2 550? People buy these things on purpose? 8200? If someone bought this CPU with its lack of virtualization, overclocking is not going to be for them anyways. Just wow....
 
G

Guest

Guest
Awesome12345: What has virtualization to do with overclocking? How many normal users(or even gamers) even use virtualization? Hell, most people probably won't even need it for Windows7 compatibility mode, except for enterprise users. Why not get a 955BE, the 945BE is hardly worth it since it's barely cheaper, why on earth would you recommend the non-BE? That is easily one of the most worthless comments to ever be left for an article...
 

awaken688

Distinguished
May 10, 2009
83
0
18,630
0
I definitely have to agree with the comments about the poor choice of the 8200. I am one the shoppers this article is referring to and I did not even consider that chip. The Q9550 is $220 right now, so it really is the chip I am looking to purchase. I completely disagree with Awesome12345 though. As an inexperienced OCer, if I am going to go AMD, I am going to get a BE because it offers an easier solution. I also would have like to see a comparison at the end of the 4 chips performance side by side. Not a bad article though minus the worthless test of the Q8200.
 

Sihastru

Distinguished
May 4, 2009
67
0
18,630
0
Q8200 is cheaper, I give you that, but lack of cache, lack of VT, lack of deeper power states... the Q9550 (now only E0 should be on the market) is a far better choice, and it overclocks very well (3.4GHz without any effort at all, 1600 FSB + 800+ DDR2).

Even so, you must have a dud, since Q8200 should overclock much more then what was achieved for the purpose of the article.

E5200 is indeed the "new Celeron". A very good cheap chip, if you get it to at least 3.33GHz (1066 FSB + 1066 DDR2). I totally agree with this choice.

But why did you go with DDR3? It's double the price of DDR2. In real life, if I have to choose between screaming-fast DDR3, or double the amount of that in DDR2... my personal preference is more RAM, even if slower RAM.

So Q9550 + DDR2 could make the list, at least price-wise. With a little OC, it would be the king of this... let's call it roundup. Some may argue that the 955BE is, but I have my favorites.
 

KyleSTL

Distinguished
Aug 17, 2007
1,678
0
19,790
1
Why the exclusion of the Athlon II X2 250? It seems like it would be a perfect candidate for this article. And why did you include the $215 top-of-the-line AMD quad for a 'budget' overclocking article? Wouldn't a Phenom II X4 810 ($140) be a better analogue for the Q8200 ($160)? That way they'd be in the same price class, and they'd both be cut-down quads. Either that or take the 955 against the 9550 ($220), and they'd both be in the same price class and be fully-functioning dies.
 

rmc779

Distinguished
Apr 22, 2009
3
0
18,510
0
A very well written guide. Bravo! It would have been interesting from the AMD side of things to test the bus speed overclock versus the multiplier overclock, finding the right balance and achieving a slightly better overclock overall with a mix of the two. I would have also liked to have seen if you had success unlocking the 2 extra cores on the X2 550 with the ACC.
 

cadder

Distinguished
Nov 17, 2008
1,702
0
19,860
43
I was a budget shopper and I picked the Q9400 when I found it on sale earlier this year at Microcenter. It has proven very willing to overclock. I was thinking about a Q6600 but didn't really want to go that way because of the additional heat output.
 

dirtmountain

Splendid
Apr 19, 2008
3,530
0
22,860
45
Gathering components, overclocking the CPUs, running the tests, writing the article, dealing with editors and staff all take time. It's not like he did this all over the course of a week or got the components yesterday.
 

philosofool

Distinguished
Jan 10, 2008
49
0
18,530
0
These articles are really for overclocking hobbyists, not people seeking to get the best bang for their buck by overclocking.

I want a budget overclocking MOTHERBOARD article. Sorry guys, if I spent $270 on a motherboard and processor, I'm not gettting a $100 proc and $170 mobo. That's dumb. $100 mobos with $170 processors (Inexpensive gigabyte P45 + e8400) are going to own this overclocked setup at stock everything.

Anytime you start talking budget, you need to figure out what the best stock system is for that cost. Then you need to see whether you can get more performance by OCing something else.
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Former Staff
[citation][nom]KyleSTL[/nom]Why the exclusion of the Athlon II X2 250? It seems like it would be a perfect candidate for this article. And why did you include the $215 top-of-the-line AMD quad for a 'budget' overclocking article?[/citation]

The Athlon II X2 250 was considered, but the Phenom II X2 550 won out in the decision process. The X4 955 is a value processor, because AMD sells nearly everything at low cost.



[citation][nom]philosofool[/nom]I want a budget overclocking MOTHERBOARD article. Sorry guys, if I spent $270 on a motherboard and processor, I'm not gettting a $100 proc and $170 mobo.[/citation]

You mean, like this one?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-p45-core,2110.html

I'm glad I could help!
 

skora

Distinguished
Nov 2, 2008
1,498
0
19,460
56
Great OC talk. This is a better starting point for a noob than the stickies becauce they aren't overloaded with info.

As for the rest of the article BOOOO. Are you gun shy from all the intel haters spewing bias allegations?
You haven't told me anything. If you are doing a comparision article, compare. Pick your parts on one of three factors, equal cost, tier in the lineups, or equal anticipated OC near the same price. But don't get the flagship CPU for team A that cost $60-$80 more than team Bs CPU. All that tells me is don't buy the Q8200 to OC. You haven't given me any alternatives. If that's my price point, I still have to go find reviews on the X4 8XXs. The x4 820 vs the Q8200 would have been same tier products and similar price points. Or on the other side, why would I consider the Q8200 if I'm in the price bracket for the x955. You've told me that the x955 is a good OCer, but what about its competition. Yes, there's pleanty of resources for the q9550 v 955, so I really don't need to see it again. Plus its outside BUDGET CPUs and into the GAMER just short of enthusiast category. As for the dual cores, the E5200 is known what it can do. Comparing it to the x2 550 falls under anticipated OC. There the value can be applied by the buyer if its worth the price difference. Alternitively, similar price would have been the x2 7850BE, not the 550. Some consistancy would have been nice for both halfs of the article.

I will end this with a compliment on originallity, no one else has ever compared the Q8200 to the x4 955.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS