Worth over locking cache for gaming ?

[Ebony Falcon]

8700k 5ghz I can do 4.7 on the cache but is it worth the extra 8c in temps 

thoughts ? 

[danalog]

Depends on what your max temp is. If it's getting into the high 70s, 80s it's not worth it.

[richodude]

unless those extra seconds are gonna matter i prefer a cooler cpu in my non-air conditioned room

[Guest]

Its worth it if your memory speed is high enough.

[Ebony Falcon]

8 minutes ago, ShrimpBrime said:

Its worth it if your memory speed is high enough.

3200mhz on my memory 

[Ebony Falcon]

1 hour ago, Mel0nMan said:

Depends on what your max temp is. If it's getting into the high 70s, 80s it's not worth it.

I’m getting into the high 70’s sometimes 

[Ebony Falcon]

35 minutes ago, Arika S said:

When I was looking at overclocking my CPU, everything i saw said It is generally recommended to keep the cache within x 3 - x 6 ratio of the core ratio . No idea why or what happens if it's less than this it's just what i will now always follow because i know it works.

 

eg, my core ratio is x46 (4.6Ghz)

and my Cache Ratio is x43

 

So 4.4 ghz is enough for 5ghz ? 

[Ebony Falcon]

1 hour ago, richodude said:

unless those extra seconds are gonna matter i prefer a cooler cpu in my non-air conditioned room

Does it just effect loading times not FPS ? 

[Alex Atkin UK]

4 minutes ago, Ebony Falcon said:

Does it just effect loading times not FPS ? 

I'd expect it could potentially impact everything, especially micro-stutter.  As the more optimal memory access is, the less time the CPU will be spent waiting on the next piece of data to work on.

Can't say if its worth it though, I've never bothered to fiddle with it personally.

[xg32]

if it's not 100C and u can't feel the heat, u could go for it, but it's not a huge difference unless even when it's high fps, iirc i got from 141 fps to 144fps average on the last bit of cache oc alone, but it wasn't 8C for me, and it never got above 80 during games.

 

but gut says 8C isn't worth it.

[SkilledRebuilds]

5 hours ago, Arika S said:

When I was looking at overclocking my CPU, everything i saw said It is generally recommended to keep the cache within x 3 - x 6 ratio of the core ratio . No idea why or what happens if it's less than this it's just what i will now always follow because i know it works.

 

eg, my core ratio is x46 (4.6Ghz)

and my Cache Ratio is x43

 

I'm at 5.2 with 4.9 ring

Advice is to drop ring to x3-6 behind yet why..?

it gets slower for both the 10850K and 4790K ive tested this on previously....(specifically how far behind ring should be and scaling frames)

 

I keep scaling higher with more ring n my (multiplayer low settings) 5x game testing up to 5.0 ring...where 5.1 is legit unstable and drops frames from a level avg.

 

10850K 5.2/50 still gains fps and lower latencies over 5.2/48 and 52/49 in the games I play..

If unstable it will drop frames, but if stable it scales for my machine..

I think people should test what they HAVE themsleves and the results seen themselves, speak from experience not the internet.

 

I think people tend to give up and deal with a lesser OC due to not having the patience.. and giving bad advice on the internet from their experiences.

[SkilledRebuilds]

43 minutes ago, Arika S said:

which is within x3

That was my first example.

I've used higher too deltas.

"best to use -3" isn't accurate from the results.

Ive used 51x with 48x/49x and 50x ring and it scales accordingly to ring increases testing performance in games..

Being my point that -3 Ring vs Core isn't solid advice without more broad testing over games and apps.