performance When people tell you no it’ll only add 1 to 2 fps

[dizmo]

There aren't that may parts to overclock. What. Three? So how are you going to have those 'really add up'? Also, going from 54 to 60 isn't noticeable. It's not like hitting 60 is suddenly SO supererior to a few frames less. 

 

As others have said, spending money for a small performance increase is never a smart idea, regardless of how much money you have to spend. 

 

12 hours ago, scuff gang said:

thers still massive overclocks out theyre you just need to know what your doing. you can still get almost a gigahertz overclock on intel chips, and it can be usefull for budget gamers who are trying to squeeze that extra little bit of [erformance out of their hardware  

What? Name a current chip that gets a 1ghz overclock on anything consumer based. 

[mr moose]

Nope, it doesn't bother me at all, with regard to something in this context it's just an opinion and the more opinions you get the more informed your choice is.    I play without an FPS counter on,  I don't know what FPS I am enjoying, it could be as low as 40 or in the 100's.  I certainly don't notice when it swings up and down (which it surely does).  So there is nothing in such advice to upset me.

 

 

[Letgomyleghoe]

18 minutes ago, dizmo said:

There aren't that may parts to overclock. What. Three? So how are you going to have those 'really add up'? Also, going from 54 to 60 isn't noticeable. It's not like hitting 60 is suddenly SO supererior to a few frames less. 

 

As others have said, spending money for a small performance increase is never a smart idea, regardless of how much money you have to spend. 

 

What? Name a current chip that gets a 1ghz overclock on anything consumer based. 

if you can overclock an intel i9 9900k to 4.6ghz (base clock) than thats a 1 ghz overlclock 

[superJayCreezy]

54 FPS is certainly playable in most instances but I can definitely tell the diffrence between 54 and 60 FPS. Really depends on ur monitors refresh rate, 54fps on a 120hz monitor feels like complete garbage. Personally I have a 75hz monitor so I shoot for no less than 75fps

[RonnieOP]

On 12/12/2019 at 8:01 AM, Master Disaster said:

This is false anyway since you can only overclock once so there's nothing to add up. Pushing your hardware for 1FPS is completely pointless, it benefits nobody and only serves to kill the hardware faster.

Ive yet to see a proper overclock kill a part earlier then expected.

 

 

[Master Disaster]

45 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Ive yet to see a proper overclock kill a part earlier then expected.

 

 

And you know when a part would die naturally how exactly?

 

Ftr I didn't say OCing kills parts (though it can if you do it wrong), I said OCing kills parts FASTER. That last word is a subtle difference.

 

Anyone arguing that running electronic components out of spec (in the case of OCing above spec) isn't going to kill them faster obviously has no idea how electronics actually work.

[Zando_]

3 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

I said OCing kills parts FASTER.

I mean yes. Does it really matter? No, they last long enough (when OCed correctly) that they're phased out of being useful long before they die from extra voltage. 

[Bombastinator]

2 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

Ive yet to see a proper overclock kill a part earlier then expected.

 

 

“Proper” being a key word.  Improper ones will do it.  What makes OCing kill parts is heat, generally.  An OC that produces too much heat would be improper, so it’s a hard one to pin down.  I worry about the lifespan of these laptops that are built with deliberately less than adequate coolers and are designed to live on thermal throttle.  I was told once that the thermal throttle temp of a CPU was already high enough to cause it to degrade.  Just more slowly.  Kicking max temp down 10c produced large lifespan improvements and another 10c after that did even more.  Might not apply to newer parts though.  

[Tristerin]

On 12/12/2019 at 11:01 AM, Bombastinator said:

I have.  

The issue with overclocking is the gains from it these days are minuscule compared to what used to be the case.  Back in the days of the early intel chips you could rais a cpu clock by an entire gigahertz or more.  It was a big big deal.  These days improvements are a tenth of that.  Small improvements do add up, but there are levels of experience improvement and they can be much less granular than even a 10-15 fps improvement.  If a person for example wants to run 60fps but is dropping into the mid 50’s it may be more effective to overclock than to get a faster cpu. If they’re in the 40s though it really won’t.  Conversely if they’re running 150 fps on a 144hz monitor, overclocking will gain them nothing tangible.

 

To make overclocking even less important there is gsynch/freesynch.  They make those occasional drops much less important.

 

Is it SOMETIMES useful? sure.  It isn’t a significant benefit all or even most of the time though.  Back in the days of massive overclocks it was a benefit all the time.  It’s not anymore.

I don't understand.  I OCd my Ryzen 1.2ghz all core over its stock 3.0ghz base and the increase on that chip is...well I don't need to buy a Zen2 because in my favorite benchmarks I still go toe to toe with some of the new lineup.

 

OP is correct in that far to often people here who...for some reason...discourage overclocking.  I don't understand it either.  Until you get into it (and I wasn't until this year) you have no idea the performance you are leaving on the table.  IMHO, those people don't know how to OC, and don't want to learn so therefore espouse that its not worth it.  Once I took the time to sit down and do it properly I went from not understanding the gains to "Dem gainz bro".

 

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, Tristerin said:

I don't understand.  I OCd my Ryzen 1.2ghz all core over its stock 3.0ghz base and the increase on that chip is...well I don't need to buy a Zen2 because in my favorite benchmarks I still go toe to toe with some of the new lineup.

 

OP is correct in that far to often people here who...for some reason...discourage overclocking.  I don't understand it either.  Until you get into it (and I wasn't until this year) you have no idea the performance you are leaving on the table.  IMHO, those people don't know how to OC, and don't want to learn so therefore espouse that its not worth it.  Once I took the time to sit down and do it properly I went from not understanding the gains to "Dem gainz bro".

 

Which ryzen?  You got a 30%+ oc out of a 2xxx class chip? What did it take to do that? Imho anything over 10% is worth doing.  If you spent $200 doing it though it becomes a bit problematic as the price difference between a 2xxx and a 3xxx can be much less than that.  I suspect there will be a lot more overclocks when ddr5 hits.  Then the price difference goes up because it won’t be just a chip swap.  It will be cpu/mobo/memory.  Mostly what I see is that the 3xxx won’t overclock for beans and if you’re buying a new ryzen 2xxx it’s cheaper to buy a ryzen 3xxx than the parts to overclock the 2xxx.

[Zando_]

2 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Mostly what I see is that the 3xxx won’t overclock for beans and if you’re buying a new ryzen 2xxx it’s cheaper to buy a ryzen 3xxx than the parts to overclock the 2xxx.

Or you be me, buy HEDT from 2014, OC it and then sit between 2000 and 3000 series Ryzen but with more PCIe lanes and higher RAM bandwidth. Turned out cheaper on the CPU/RAM front than the 2700X config I had at one point (and about half of my current custom loop carried over from that rig). I've put a bit more into cooling and plan to put yet more in (I really wanna hit 4.8-5Ghz all core tbh) though so the price might be even now. But again, it does perform a bit better and gives me more expandability as far as PCIe and RAM goes. 

[Tristerin]

1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

Which ryzen?  You got a 30%+ oc out of a 2xxx class chip? What did it take to do that? Imho anything over 10% is worth doing.  If you spent $200 doing it though it becomes a bit problematic as the price difference between a 2xxx and a 3xxx can be much less than that.  I suspect there will be a lot more overclocks when ddr5 hits.  Then the price difference goes up because it won’t be just a chip swap.  It will be cpu/mobo/memory.  Mostly what I see is that the 3xxx won’t overclock for beans and if you’re buying a new ryzen 2xxx it’s cheaper to buy a ryzen 3xxx than the parts to overclock the 2xxx.

RR2 in sig, took a $100 custom loop I sourced the parts from China to take the heat (Im a mixed metals loop specialist at this point).  I paid $136 shipped a year ago for my R7 1700 using GoogleExpress $30 off, plus it on steep discount (my RR1 in sig is a golden sample too I bought at launch, I have the same loop sitting here as parts just no time to put it together, it does a 3.8ghz all core at stock voltages, same as RR2 chip did when I decided to go full bore).  It beats the stock R5 3600 in Cinebench at 4.1ghz so no need to upgrade (cant get a clean 4.2ghz pass on CineR20 yet) - and as you noted they aren't known to overclock well.

 

At the time, the R7 2700X was more expensive than building the loop and beating it in benches.  Plus I got a stable 3600mhz ram on my R7 1700 (2666mhz CPU controller) through extensive overclocking - and guess what - the results are 100% worth.  I got 3200mhz stable on RR1 in sig (I don't OC it at all right now its AIO isn't able to keep up) and the difference from 2666mhz to 3200mhz is...100% worth it.  

 

Either way, I disagree that overclocking isn't worth it - except in situations it isn't.  And that's up to the individual.  I got into OCing just for the experience.  Now I OC everything and its mom because its fun.   

 

[Bombastinator]

4 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

RR2 in sig, took a $100 custom loop I sourced the parts from China to take the heat (Im a mixed metals loop specialist at this point).  I paid $136 shipped a year ago for my R7 1700 using GoogleExpress $30 off, plus it on steep discount (my RR1 in sig is a golden sample too I bought at launch, I have the same loop sitting here as parts just no time to put it together, it does a 3.8ghz all core at stock voltages, same as RR2 chip did when I decided to go full bore).  It beats the stock R5 3600 in Cinebench at 4.1ghz so no need to upgrade (cant get a clean 4.2ghz pass on CineR20 yet) - and as you noted they aren't known to overclock well.

 

At the time, the R7 2700X was more expensive than building the loop and beating it in benches.  Plus I got a stable 3600mhz ram on my R7 1700 (2666mhz CPU controller) through extensive overclocking - and guess what - the results are 100% worth.  I got 3200mhz stable on RR1 in sig (I don't OC it at all right now its AIO isn't able to keep up) and the difference from 2666mhz to 3200mhz is...100% worth it.  

 

Either way, I disagree that overclocking isn't worth it - except in situations it isn't.  And that's up to the individual.  I got into OCing just for the experience.  Now I OC everything and its mom because its fun.   

 

So you’re saying you got 3xxx performance out of a 1xxx cpu using a custom loop you made for $100 in parts.

 

current price of a new 1700 on pcpartpicker: $289.  You paid $136 though.

current price of a new 3700x on pcpartpicker: $310

 

so you saved $74 and got to play with it for a good long time.

[amdorintel]

3 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

so you saved $74 and got to play with it for a good long time.

not bad price for pleasure ratio

[Bombastinator]

5 minutes ago, amdorintel said:

not bad price for pleasure ratio

It’s not.

[RonnieOP]

4 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

And you know when a part would die naturally how exactly?

 

Ftr I didn't say OCing kills parts (though it can if you do it wrong), I said OCing kills parts FASTER. That last word is a subtle difference.

 

Anyone arguing that running electronic components out of spec (in the case of OCing above spec) isn't going to kill them faster obviously has no idea how electronics actually work.

"faster"

 

Well how much faster? Are we talking a week or 5 years?

 

If overclocking gets you 10% extra performance and the part last 10 years instead of 11 years thats not much of a difference and the part wouldve been long decommissioned by most users.

 

Im not arguing it doesnt hurt the lifespan. but its probably not noticeable and not an issue.