Is "overcloking for free performance upgrade" still valid ?

[andiireyhann]

Please bear with me on this, 

 

I'm referring to Intel line of processors/CPU,

Nowadays, you have to pay more to get an unlocked version of the CPU, which will cost you more money.

You have to pay for Z-chipset motherboards to be able to overclock things, which also in the end costing more money.

You have to buy an adequate aftermarket cooler to get a decent OC, which also in the end costing more money.

You *probably* need to have more headroom in your PSU to OC, which *probably* in the end costing more money as well.

 

Since you have to pay more to OC your CPU, and not to mention you better to pair it with an adequate GPU to keep up with the CPU, doesn't it actually cancel out the "free performance upgrade" of things? Is the overclocking part now more of a hobby (beside the actual performance gain ofc) ?

 

It's probably still valid on high-end workstations, where you need a little extra performance gain without having to spend on a much more expensive CPUs and where the cost of the extra gimmicks can actually be justified.. -> your thoughts ?

 

Yes you are still able to get free performance gains on AMD chips since most of them are unlocked, but you'd probably spend more on some aftermarket cooler as well to get more juice, and yet again costing more money. And yes you still get performance gains on OC'ing GPU, but in this case I'm referring to CPUs (Intel's)..

 

Thoughts ? Do you think OCing to get "free performance upgrade" argument still valid ?

[Darel321]

I think you're on to something

[Moonzy]

to get higher single threaded performance, OC is the only way

to get multithreaded performance, there are a few other than OC

 

seeing how gaming relies on faster cores, overclocking might be worth it

[ZetZet]

14 minutes ago, andiireyhann said:

Nowadays, you have to pay more to get an unlocked version of the CPU, which will cost you more money.

 

[BoredErica]

I don't think people would typically need to upgrade their PSU to overclock their CPU.  Most people would probably steer clear of stock coolers even when not overclocking. I also don't see the strong connection between an overclocked processor and having to get a faster GPU. Nobody ever claims the reverse either. You can just take the extra performance and call it a day. The biggest gains would be on a CPU bound game, and in that situation a faster GPU wouldn't really help.

[Dabombinable]

Just now, ZetZet said:

 

It does have its draw backs with Skylake however due to its design. Which is why LGa775 is still the go-to platform for overclocking fun. As for GPU....a friend of mine has his 860M running with the core and memory clock sliders in MSI afterburner maxed out...and it along with the i7 4***QM doesn't thermal throttle, and the 860M as a result flogs 870M.

[VinsinityKT]

It may last longer and save you money before upgrading later. I don't overclock till I need it.

[Moonzy]

5 minutes ago, ZetZet said:

 

i will never support overclocking a locked chip tbh

just because the risk of frying your chip is high, and if you can afford a good cooler then get a friggin unlocked chip `-`

microcodes dodging is annoying too

 

but i do agree that intel is making it unnecessarily hard for us to do what we want to do with our hardware

[andiireyhann]

How about it being "a free performance upgrade" ? Do you think OCing still counts as a free performance upgrade despite the extra cost ?

[manikyath]

well, i got a Z chipset motherboard because i wanted SLI compatibility "just in case" (SLI is only a thing on Z chipset, dont ask me why, i dont know either) so a K cpu just fit in with that. in the end i could have saved more money by not getting a bluray burner than i would have saved on not getting an overclockable cpu

 

how i look at it is i pay a bit more at the start for the overclockable part, but keep it at stock until i actually need that extra crunching, thats where i OC it, to squeeze out an extra year or so of lifespan to wait for the right moment to buy new parts.

[Dabombinable]

2 minutes ago, andiireyhann said:

How about it being "a free performance upgrade" ? Do you think OCing still counts as a free performance upgrade despite the extra cost ?

To a certain extent. It always depends on however on exactly how great an overclock you can manage over stock, which for example with an i7 4790k is 4.6GHz on average, 4.8GHz more rarely, and 4.9-5GHz being extremely rare. With newer CPU unless its for example X99 i7 with their low stock speeds, and you have the cooling to get them to 4.4GHz+, you really will not see much of a performance boost, and more often than not unlocked CPU will not be worth the extra cost (for me however, I run my 4790K at 3.5GHz as that's more than enough for any game, and latter on when it gets too slow in newer games, I'll run it at stock then eventually at 4.8GHz (it just manages to run 4.8GHz at a safe voltage).

[iDeFecZx]

Well, my 4690k was actually the same price as the non K version when I bought it, my Z97 board was one of the very few that I could actually buy in ITX,. And my friend gave me their 212 as they'd bought a H100. Sure buying a locked CPU might have been better along with a non overclocking board, but I bought it with the mindset that soon i'll be getting a 4790k or something. Not the best plan, since my board won't let me go past 4.0GHz. Tbf, I managed to OC my CPU just fine on the stock cooler with reasonable temps, if anything the 212 just made it look fancier.

[andiireyhann]

On 4/25/2016 at 3:48 PM, manikyath said:

well, i got a Z chipset motherboard because i wanted SLI compatibility "just in case" (SLI is only a thing on Z chipset, dont ask me why, i dont know either) so a K cpu just fit in with that. in the end i could have saved more money by not getting a bluray burner than i would have saved on not getting an overclockable cpu

 

how i look at it is i pay a bit more at the start for the overclockable part, but keep it at stock until i actually need that extra crunching, thats where i OC it, to squeeze out an extra year or so of lifespan to wait for the right moment to buy new parts.

Isn't that just basically buying a better hardware for better performance and longevity/more "future proof"(i.e. not free) ? But still, you owe yourself to OC that CPU to justify the extra cost

[manikyath]

1 minute ago, andiireyhann said:

Isn't that just basically buying a better hardware for better performance and longevity/more "future proof"(i.e. not free) ? But still, you owe yourself to OC that CPU to justify the extra cost

well, as i stated, in the large scheme of things the price difference was pretty neglible.

[Tech Deals]

2 minutes ago, manikyath said:

well, as i stated, in the large scheme of things the price difference was pretty neglible.

It really is...

 

Look at a i5-6500 vs i5-6600K

 

It really isn't that far apart.  Now if you also add in the difference between H170/Z170, and a nice liquid cooler, it adds up.

 

I figure $150 more for a "proper" overclocking setup, but for that you'll get 20% more performance out of it and it will run cool and mostly quiet.

[manikyath]

1 minute ago, Tech Deals said:

It really is...

 

Look at a i5-6500 vs i5-6600K

 

It really isn't that far apart.  Now if you also add in the difference between H170/Z170, and a nice liquid cooler, it adds up.

 

I figure $150 more for a "proper" overclocking setup, but for that you'll get 20% more performance out of it and it will run cool and mostly quiet.

my cooler choice was set in stone either way: k cpu or not i was gonna get a big tower cooler since i still hate liquid cooling, and i like quiet computing.

 

as for mobo.. i mentioned before i really preferred to have SLI support "just in case" which limited choice down to Z chipset either way

[andiireyhann]

On 4/25/2016 at 4:07 PM, Tech Deals said:

It really is...

 

Look at a i5-6500 vs i5-6600K

 

It really isn't that far apart.  Now if you also add in the difference between H170/Z170, and a nice liquid cooler, it adds up.

 

I figure $150 more for a "proper" overclocking setup, but for that you'll get 20% more performance out of it and it will run cool and mostly quiet.

back to point one then, it ain't free no more.. you're paying more for a better hardware, hence the better performance too

 

I mean I'm all for the OC fun but I think the for free term is not quite "true" anymore

[BoredErica]

32 minutes ago, andiireyhann said:

How about it being "a free performance upgrade" ? Do you think OCing still counts as a free performance upgrade despite the extra cost ?

Well, we also need to define the word, 'free'. Free as in, not having to pay more money outright? Or free as in, no extra costs? Because overclocking has costs. For example, the time it takes to stabilize an overclock is worth money. So in that sense nothing is ever free.

 

The Skylake loophole is probably going to be gone next time. I would say it's not free in either definition. But if you do what the other guy does and just add in a water cooling setup out of the blue, that is an excessive cost and I think more or less a strawman.

[andiireyhann]

On 4/25/2016 at 4:18 PM, Dark_wizzie said:

Well, we also need to define the word, 'free'. Free as in, not having to pay more money outright? Or free as in, no extra costs? Because overclocking has costs. For example, the time it takes to stabilize an overclock is worth money. So in that sense nothing is ever free.

 

The Skylake loophole is probably going to be gone next time. I would say it's not free in either definition. But if you do what the other guy does and just add in a water cooling setup out of the blue, that is an excessive cost and I think more or less a strawman.

It's as in no extra money would be needed. In the older days, *i think* all you need is a better cooler and you're good to go. That's not free but the performance gains you get for your extra $ is worth it. You might even get away with the stock cooler itself.

 

But nowadays, you need a bunch of extra gimmicks like the Z chipsets and unlocked CPUs, which makes the money cost adds up. In addition to the extra cost of the two, you will have to have a better cooler so you can reach the full potential of your unlocked CPU. Whereas in the old days you can get away OCing with stock cooler and you dont have to spend more to justify the extra money cost of mobo and unlocked cpus and such.

[Dabombinable]

1 minute ago, andiireyhann said:

It's as in no extra money would be needed. In the older days, *i think* all you need is a better cooler and you're good to go. That's not free but the performance gains you get for your extra $ is worth it. You might even get away with the stock cooler itself.

 

But nowadays, you need a bunch of extra gimmicks like the Z chipsets and unlocked CPUs, which makes the money cost adds up. In addition to the extra cost of the two, you will have to have a better cooler so you can reach the full potential of your unlocked CPU. Whereas in the old days you can get away OCing with stock cooler and you dont have to spend more to justify the extra money cost of mobo and unlocked cpus and such.

I miss the days of the Pentium III 1000EB. I've got both of mine at 1.2GHz on their stock coolers, and they stay below 60^oC

[BoredErica]

Just now, andiireyhann said:

In addition to the extra cost of the two, you will have to have a better cooler so you can reach the full potential of your unlocked CPU.

I think that's beside the point. The question was whether overclocking is a free performance upgrade, not whether overclocking by a large margin or overclocking to the furthest the chip can possibly go is free.

 

Wouldn't just being able to overclock by 1% qualify? Then a run of the mill non-k-sku chip can overclock a little bit. That's still overclocking and still a performance upgrade and still no more money down the drain. Except maybe power, in that you would have to draw a few more watts out of the wall.

[andiireyhann]

1 hour ago, Dark_wizzie said:

I think that's beside the point. The question was whether overclocking is a free performance upgrade, not whether overclocking by a large margin or overclocking to the furthest the chip can possibly go is free.

 

Wouldn't just being able to overclock by 1% qualify? Then a run of the mill non-k-sku chip can overclock a little bit. That's still overclocking and still a performance upgrade and still no more money down the drain. Except maybe power, in that you would have to draw a few more watts out of the wall.

well with the point slightly altered then, do the non k cpus provide enough gain when overclocked for it to matter or atleast affect real world performance? yes its still free but is the gain still as good as it was back then?

[Lays]

2 hours ago, Moonzy said:

i will never support overclocking a locked chip tbh

just because the risk of frying your chip is high, and if you can afford a good cooler then get a friggin unlocked chip `-`

microcodes dodging is annoying too

 

but i do agree that intel is making it unnecessarily hard for us to do what we want to do with our hardware

The risk of frying your chip is no different on a K series than on a non K series.  It's literally the same thing, with a locked or unlocked multiplier.  There isn't some magical pixie dust that saves your chip from frying when overclocking a K series CPU.

 

With a proper motherboard, the "microcode dodging" isn't an issue, the Asrock OC Formula lineup right now has selectable microcodes in the BIOS.

[BoredErica]

14 minutes ago, andiireyhann said:

well with the point slightly altered then, do the non k cpus provide enough gain when overclocked for it to matter or atleast affect real world performance? yes its still free but is the gain still as good as it was back then?

I think the answers to your questions are 1) Very unlikely and 2) No.

[X_X]

3 hours ago, manikyath said:

well, as i stated, in the large scheme of things the price difference was pretty neglible.

What about comparing an i7-4700MQ with i7-4930MX?