i3 overclock?

[Mouse-Potato]

Hi,

 

Was wondering if it is possible to overclock an I3, I've seen places that say yes and others that say no...

 

If it is possible which one is the best option for overclocking?

 

Thanks!

[niofalpha]

As far as I know (Most/ all) i3's are not overclockable or atleast by base clock... The only Overclockable modern Intel processors are either K Series, Extreme Edition, or the G3258... To my knoledge with little research in otherwise. 

 

I believe Linus covers it in his i3's vs i5's vs i7's Tech Quickie...

[Suffokation]

You can increase some multipliers, overall you will only really see a 200 - 300 MHz increase.

[Laederem]

It's limited, but you can do a baseclock overclock. That changes the clocks of everything in the system, so it is harder to do but very much possible. 

[CoolaxGaming]

Any CPU can be overclocked by increasing base clock. The K series means unlocked multiplier....

[Mouse-Potato]

It's limited, but you can do a baseclock overclock. That changes the clocks of everything in the system, so it is harder to do but very much possible. 

 

 

Any CPU can be overclocked by increasing base clock. The K series means unlocked multiplier....

 

I saw the 3258 vs 5960x video and thought why not overclock a dual core with hyper threading for some good cheap gaming?

 

So would I have to use the bios to modify the base clock or can I use my mobos overclocking program?

[Laederem]

I saw the 3258 vs 5960x video and thought why not overclock a dual core with hyper threading for some good cheap gaming?

 

So would I have to use the bios to modify the base clock or can I use my mobos overclocking program?

usually BIOS, but read a lot about it because it's VERY easy to screw things up with PCIE/SATA/USB clocks going out of spec. 

[CoolaxGaming]

I saw the 3258 vs 5960x video and thought why not overclock a dual core with hyper threading for some good cheap gaming?

 

So would I have to use the bios to modify the base clock or can I use my mobos overclocking program?

Base clock is best done with bios... Plus a dual core can be 10 ghz but still fail to a 5 ghz 8 core processor in gaming. Games are taking advantage of more cores...

[Faceman]

Base clock is best done with bios... Plus a dual core can be 10 ghz but still fail to a 5 ghz 8 core processor in gaming. Games are taking advantage of more cores...

There is a grand total of one game that runs better when more cores are available.  That game is Dragon Age Inquisition, and the performance difference from FX8 and i5 is 1fps.  In the majority of games, an i3 beats an FX8.

 

Benchmarks:

http://www.hardcorew...-4340-review/2/

http://www.hardwarep...8-games-tested/

http://www.tomshardw...cpu,3929-7.html

http://www.anandtech...w-vishera-95w/3

http://techreport.co...sor-reviewed/14

 

 

"To put it nicely, the FX-8370E is a true middle-of-the-road CPU. Using it only makes sense as long as the graphics card you choose comes from a similar performance segment.

Depending on the game in question, AMD’s new processor has the potential to keep you happy around the AMD Radeon R9 270X/285 or Nvidia GeForce GTX 760 or 660 Ti level.

A higher- or even high-end graphics card doesn’t make sense, as pairing it with AMD's FX-8370E simply limits the card's potential."

 

"This is a huge result – it wasn’t until we used a Haswell core CPU that the R9 280X  was able to deliver consistent frame times and a 60 FPS frame rate in Assassin’s Creed IV. All three AMD CPUs we used – even the FX 8350 – and the Ivy Bridge Core i3 would deliver a sub 60 FPS frame rate, with frame spikes throughout the benchmark run.

In this case, the Core i3 4340 allows the R9 280X GPU to run at maximum potential, just like the Core i5 (and Core i7 would)."

 

"Pop over to the gaming scatter, though, and the picture changes dramatically. There, the FX-8350 is the highest-performance AMD desktop processor to date for gaming, finally toppling the venerable Phenom II X4 980. Yet the FX-8350's gaming performance almost exactly matches that of the Core i3-3225, a $134 Ivy Bridge-based processor. Meanwhile, the Core i5-3470 delivers markedly superior gaming performance for less money than the FX-8350. The FX-8350 isn't exactly bad for video games—its performance was generally acceptable in our tests. But it is relatively weak compared to the competition.

This strange divergence between the two performance pictures isn't just confined to gaming, of course. The FX-8350 is also relatively pokey in image processing applications, in SunSpider, and in the less widely multithreaded portions of our video encoding tests. Many of these scenarios rely on one or several threads, and the FX-8350 suffers compared to recent Intel chips in such cases. Still, the contrast between the FX-8350 and the Sandy/Ivy Bridge chips isn't nearly as acute as it was with the older FX processors. Piledriver's IPC gains and that 4GHz base clock have taken the edge off of our objections.

The other major consideration here is power consumption, and really, the FX-8350 isn't even the same class of product as the Ivy Bridge Core i5 processors on this front. There's a 48W gap between the TDP ratings of the Core i5 parts and the FX-8350, but in our tests, the actual difference at the wall socket between two similarly configured systems under load was over 100W. That gap is large enough to force the potential buyer to think deeply about the class of power supply, case, and CPU cooler he needs for his build. One could definitely get away with less expensive components for a Core i5 system."

 

"The FX-8370E stretches its legs a little in terms of minimum frame rates, particularly in SLI, however it is handily beaten by the i3-4330."

 

"Average frametimes did not do AMD’s processors any justice either. As we already said the game was fluid with i7 and i5’s, and somewhat playable with the i3 processor line. When we switched to FX CPUs not only did we have worse framerate but the gameplay was simply put, laggy."

[CoolaxGaming]

There is a grand total of one game that runs better when more cores are available.  That game is Dragon Age Inquisition, and the performance difference from FX8 and i5 is 1fps.  In the majority of games, an i3 beats an FX8.

Not an FX, I will not even call FX a true 8 core... More like a 4 core.

The 5960x is the true 8 core processor. Not now but games are taking advantage of more cores.

[Faceman]

Not an FX, I will not even call FX a true 8 core... More like a 4 core.

The 5960x is the true 8 core processor. Not now but games are taking advantage of more cores.

 

 

Mmmm, those 3 fps are really nice.  It will probably be the same once the i5 is overclocked.

[CoolaxGaming]

 

 

Mmmm, those 3 fps are really nice.  It will probably be the same once the i5 is overclocked.

Ok ok... I5 ftw for now. But a dual core like the g3258 will get rekt.

[Faceman]

Ok ok... I5 ftw for now. But a dual core like the g3258 will get rekt.

I agree.  An i3 is a better option than a G3258, unless you plan to make an upgrade to an i5 or i7 in the very near future, or don't plan to play any of these games that demand more cores/threads.

[typographie]

I saw the 3258 vs 5960x video and thought why not overclock a dual core with hyper threading for some good cheap gaming?

 

It's a nice thought, an i3-xxxxK would be a killer product, but it would also cannibalize Intel's Core i5 sales.

 

While you can overclock an i3 gently using the BCLK, you're only going to get a few hundred MHz out of it. And further, a lot of other settings in your BIOS are based off of your BCLK, so adjusting that has consequences. It's not really advisable to mess with it much on any current Intel platforms. You won't get anywhere near the results you'd see with any K-series product.

 

Motherboard overclocking software doesn't usually give you much granular control as far as I know, so I'd be pretty surprised if BCLK overclocking was offered as an option. You're going to get a better result overclocking in the BIOS whether you've got an unlocked multiplier or not, though.

[Mouse-Potato]

It's a nice thought, an i3-xxxxK would be a killer product, but it would also cannibalize Intel's Core i5 sales.

 

While you can overclock an i3 gently using the BCLK, you're only going to get a few hundred MHz out of it. And further, a lot of other settings in your BIOS are based off of your BCLK, so adjusting that has consequences. It's not really advisable to mess with it much on any current Intel platforms. You won't get anywhere near the results you'd see with any K-series product.

 

Motherboard overclocking software doesn't usually give you much granular control as far as I know, so I'd be pretty surprised if BCLK overclocking was offered as an option. You're going to get a better result overclocking in the BIOS whether you've got an unlocked multiplier or not, though.

What if you did BCLK oc and then ran an auto overclock program like on the K series motherboards?

 

Would it blow up?