is OC really worth the investment? I did a calculation.

[typographie]

11 hours ago, plasticplanet said:

from my calculation it seems like it is much better to just go with faster non-oc cpu. And that's even I didn't take a more powerful PSU into my calculation.

That's not surprising whatsoever. Overclocking is as much (arguably more) about the enjoyment of a hobby as it is a practical performance/dollar assessment. It's almost effortless to find games where your CPU overclock does nothing at all—basically any game that's GPU limited, which most games should be.

 

In almost any scenario where someone doesn't specifically want to go out of their way to overclock, I'd recommend they buy a locked CPU.

[Scitesh]

Everyone is not OCing  for the price to performance  some are here just for the fun   the i7 K  skews are thus marketed(and intended )for  "prosumers" the best p/p  us usually obtained by a  locked i5  on Z__  boards and  as of BCLK  was multiplier I have tried both of them on the same chip mobo  pair and have noticed I  get BETTER ocs  o multiplier

[smokefest]

13 hours ago, plasticplanet said:

Seeing so many people overclocking, and now I wonder it is even cheaper to just go with faster CPU.

Overclock:

motherboard: Asus Z170-A (amazon:$150) most popular mobo in  LTT buy's choice.

CPU: I5 6600K 91W (newegg: $240)

Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo (neweeg: $25 after rebate)

total: $415

No OC:

mobo: Asus H170 PRO-CSM (amazon: $95) similar spec ASUS, DDR4 ATX

CPU: I7-6700 65W  (newegg: $310)

cooler: stock

total: $415

 

from my calculation it seems like it is much better to just go with faster non-oc cpu. And that's even I didn't take a more powerful PSU into my calculation.

 

It is better to go with the NON OC i7 6700k then a 6600k oc...

 

The price difference is because you picked a costy board for the OC version, you could have picked a cheaper borad that sill has z170 with oc capabilities and the build would be cheaper than the i7 non oc...

Also you comparing an i7 to an i5..

You should compare a build with i5 K vs i5 non k, you would see that the OC version is doing better for not so many extra $$$

 

Its irrelevent to compare the i5 k oc, vs i7 non oc...

But you are right, its better to pick the i7 non oc than the i5 oc, even at the best OC, ythe i5 will never perform as good as an i7 non oc...


 

[smokefest]

13 hours ago, A Damn Crab! said:

Of course it is... 

 

i7 6700 is faster but won't beat a 6600k clocked high enough as it's single core performance will destroy the 6700, the 6700 has an advantage in games and apps that use more threads.

 

6700k is still better.

 

If you need threads i would go X99 and 5820K.

That is wrong... an i5 will never beat an i7 even if its OC @ 4.8 ghz.... and the i7 is stock....

just so u know per exemple, in rise of the tomb raider or BF1 , an i5 will struggle and be @ 100% usage all the time, even if clocked @ 4.8 ghz... and you will get cpu lag,

But an i7 will sleep @ 60% usage and there will be 0 cpu lag

[Lays]

5 hours ago, Simon771 said:

4,7GHz on locked chip sounds a bit unrealistic to me, since it's not that easy to get 4,7GHz on unlocked skylake chip.

4.7 is the average oc on unlocked chips.  On overclock.net there is a skylake overclocking thread that has a spreadsheet with averages and everything, it's like 4.68 Ghz for 6600k and 4.7 for 6700k.

 

5 hours ago, Alexokan said:

I hate when people recommend this. 

 

You have to be experienced to accomplish this and is on a level higher than just OC'ing, which many are already intimidated by. 

You don't need to be experienced at all.  There's in depth guides all over the Internet.  All you have to do is flash a bios, change your bclk and voltage, enable XMP,  then lower your memory multiplier.