Sorry, I just don't get it. Why overclock? What does it get one? Thanks
A few reasons, IMO.
Even if you could oc.....which you can't with those parts....you might open a can-of-worms problem wise.What does performance translate into? Faster og on, better video? I just installed new components.
ASUS TUF Gaming Z590 Plus Gaming Motherboard (ATX, 11th/10th Gen Intel Core, LGA 1200 Socket, DDR4, PCIe 4, CFX, M.2 Slots, USB 3.2 Gen 2, DP/HDMI, Mystic Light
Gigabyte GeForce GTX GV-N1080G1 GAMING-8GD
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin SDRAM (PC4-25600) DDR4 3200
Intel Core i5-10600 (base stroke: 3.30GHz; socket: LGA1200; 65 watt
Monitor: Gigabyte G32QC A 32 " 165 Hz 144oP Curved Gaming monitor 2550 x 144
With that board and processor you should enable XMP profile to run your memory at the rated 3200 speed it defaults to a slower speed without doing that.OK, I can understand that point of view.
Personal enjoyment and slightly higher performance. It also gets you a disproportionate amount of heat and power consumption relative to the performance gain. For that reason I don't overclock personally. Modern chips are already clocked so high that there's very little gain to be had in most instances.
'cause it's fun! I enjoy figuring things out.
Depends on how you view the math: with an 11900K cpu, based speed is 35. If you activate the automatic turbo mode, if becomes 51 which can be viewed as 46 percent faster. If you overclock, you can get speeds or 53 or 54 (sometimes only on one core) which is 4 to 6 percent faster than plain turbo. So it boils down to how much more does 4 to 6 percent mean to you. If your gaming and getting 80 fps, then you could be getting 84 fps. Would you notice that if there wasn't a fps counter on the screen; probably not. If you're running software that takes 5 minutes to perform a task, and it could take 4 minutes 48 seconds or 4:43 seconds, would you notice that if you weren't watching the clock, and would it matter?
There was a guy here recently whose system supposedly gets 600FPS in some cheesy game.How many Frames per second does one need in gaming?
I did try to research this once by searching for valid scientific studies about human reaction times as they relate to video games but I never found anything definitive. So the answer to WHY? would be that gamers think they need more FPS and that they think they have the reaction time to use more FPS to game better.How many Frames per second does one need in gaming? It seems to vary by the games and scene in the game. Just ran Bench Marks on Averages listed, Tomb Raider; 164 fps, Return of the Tomb Raider: 92 fps. Seems fine to me. What one one expect to gain in fps? I had or have any intention of overclocking. Seems like a waste of money and stress. Just curious as to the WHY?
This was probably one of those guys who, when digital music was created, claimed that he could hear the 44,100 individual samples per second.There was a guy here recently whose system supposedly gets 600FPS in some cheesy game.
He wanted more, because he can tell the difference between 600fps and 700fps.
Not a typo....actual continued questioning, he maintained that those numbers.
For some, maybe. Totally untrue for me.60 fps is enough. Unless your looking at your monitor thru an old video camera your eyes won't notice the difference above 60.