- Nov 27, 2012
- 783
- 0
- 19,060
Hey guys, I have an odd question to ask.
I had been watching some reviews on Youtube recently, done by various posters. some professional and well done others not so much. I was looking just to compare similar systems gaming benchmarks with my own and I noticed something.
For many reviewers after 4.5ghz+ the average and min fps actually was lower with a higher overclock, particularly one over 4.8ghz. I found myself wondering if these reviewers were really running stable overclocks or if there fps were lower with higher overclocks because they were unstable. I decided to try it out myself.
I found that any overclock at or above 4.7ghz actually lost some fps.
For instance, I ran Tomb Raiders benchmark. All ultimate, with no Vsync at 1080p and at 4.5ghz my fps stood at: 67avg, 81 max, 41min.
I then ran it at a tested 20hour plus Prime stable 4.7ghz same settings: 62avg, 76max, 37.7 min.
I was surprised to say the least. I then decided to run a temporary 4.8ghz clock, I ran a very high IBT, just to ensure some stability.
Ran benchmark again, my results were: 61fps avg, 76fps max, 36fps min.
I also tried some other games, with similar results, including BF3 and Crysis 3. The results were similar with general minor fps loss with a higher overclock.
To compare all of my results I reverted my cpu back to stock, w/turbo core and ran just Tomb Raider benchmark. 62avg, 77max, 36min. So basically it looks to me that at 4.5ghz I'm seeing a nice boost but anything higher actually reduces performance. I know many people may state it is a negligible loss I understand that, but I don't like seeing any loss with a higher stable clock.
Any thoughts on this? A possible reasoning for it? Has anyone else tested this? Thanks
Just curious.
I had been watching some reviews on Youtube recently, done by various posters. some professional and well done others not so much. I was looking just to compare similar systems gaming benchmarks with my own and I noticed something.
For many reviewers after 4.5ghz+ the average and min fps actually was lower with a higher overclock, particularly one over 4.8ghz. I found myself wondering if these reviewers were really running stable overclocks or if there fps were lower with higher overclocks because they were unstable. I decided to try it out myself.
I found that any overclock at or above 4.7ghz actually lost some fps.
For instance, I ran Tomb Raiders benchmark. All ultimate, with no Vsync at 1080p and at 4.5ghz my fps stood at: 67avg, 81 max, 41min.
I then ran it at a tested 20hour plus Prime stable 4.7ghz same settings: 62avg, 76max, 37.7 min.
I was surprised to say the least. I then decided to run a temporary 4.8ghz clock, I ran a very high IBT, just to ensure some stability.
Ran benchmark again, my results were: 61fps avg, 76fps max, 36fps min.
I also tried some other games, with similar results, including BF3 and Crysis 3. The results were similar with general minor fps loss with a higher overclock.
To compare all of my results I reverted my cpu back to stock, w/turbo core and ran just Tomb Raider benchmark. 62avg, 77max, 36min. So basically it looks to me that at 4.5ghz I'm seeing a nice boost but anything higher actually reduces performance. I know many people may state it is a negligible loss I understand that, but I don't like seeing any loss with a higher stable clock.
Any thoughts on this? A possible reasoning for it? Has anyone else tested this? Thanks
Just curious.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram