What are the benefits of overclocking?

cothoffee · Jun 16, 2016

I know this has been asked, but I wondered if anyone had any updated input.
For reference, I recently acquired an asus z170-ar for overclocking a 6600k but I'm considering sending it back and sticking to non-k. This is my first build and I'm not too interested in tech DIY as a hobby, I was mainly drawn to the idea of increasing the usefulness of the cpu by possibly OC'ing somewhere down the line.

So has it been worth it for you? Is it worth it still? Beyond the appeal of tinkering with a PC does it have real benefits worth the possible $150 total extra investment?

Gam3r01 · Jun 16, 2016

Modern intel processors do not benefit from OCs nearly as much as older processors (for example, my phenom II).
You do get some marginal performance gains from OCs, such as a few seconds faster render times (or minutes depending on file sizes), a few more FPS in CPU bound titles, or just generally better performance all around.

At this point, if you would rather save the money a locked processor is still a sound investment.

IInuyasha74 · Jun 16, 2016

The reasons to overclock don't really change over time. People do it to get better performance. A few do it for fun or to compete, but essentially most do it for improved performance.

Overclocking is rather easy nowadays, and because it makes the part faster, it can make the system be useful for longer, because it won't feel slow quite as quickly. I.E. if your CPU would feel slow in 3 years, and you overclock it, it might still feel reasonably fast in 3 years, but feel slow in 4 years. This is all relative to what's on the market at that time of course, and I'm not saying your Skylake CPU will only last 3 or 4 years, just giving an example.

For me, I certainly find it worth while. I've had my CPU for 4 years, and will likely use it until 2020 because I overclocked it over 500 MHz (0.5 GHz), while other people with similar Ivy Bridge processors that aren't capable of overclocking may be starting to consider upgrading to a new system in the next year or two.

juanrdp · Jun 16, 2016

The main reason to overclock is to get more performance at the cost of a little more expensive parts (6600k vs an 6600 non-K, the z170 is better than the h170 because it have also more lanes, not only for the overcloking) and a little more heat and power comsuption.

You have the added benefict that the overcloking is more beneficial in single thread applications, because you could get a lot higher cpu frecuency without almost any chance of overheating when you are only using one core from the 4 of the Cpu.

synphul · Jun 16, 2016

My personal preference is overclocking. A cpu that's 'enough' tends to struggle sooner or later and by the time that happens a generation or so of cpu's and their motherboard sockets have passed meaning a new replacement is rather costly. With my 4690k overclocked I can easily get i5 6600 performance from it. It meant a z series board and a better cooler which were a bit more. I planned already to use an aftermarket cooler, for looks and for performance. Not everyone cares what it looks like or cares about noise. By going with a big air cooler even oc'd my i5 is whisper quiet and I like that.

On the other hand, If I had to upgrade to skylake it would mean more than $30-50 for a decent cooler and $20-30 for a nicer motherboard. It would mean a $200 cpu and another $130-150 motherboard. Ouch. The fewer times I have to do that, the better. Not counting having to buy ddr4 ram, having to reinstall windows etc. Not to mention the performance that people were waiting for to release with skylake I was enjoying for a good 12-18mo before it even hit store shelves. So to me personally it's worth it.

There's also the price/value factor. You mentioned z170-ar and the 6600k. A $160 motherboard isn't a 'requirement' to overclock. There are cheap z170 boards for $90-100 and solid oc choices in the form of $120 z170 boards. So is it a $150 investment over the top of a non k? Depends what parts you choose really. I can make it a $500 difference if I go with something redonkulous like a $500 z board like the gigabyte gaming g1. It also depends on which cooler, a $35 cryorig h7 or $100 h100i? In other words it 'can' be a lot more expensive to overclock but it doesn't 'have' to be based on parts chosen.

The 6600k itself is only around $20 more than an i5 6500. Granted with the k series you 'have' to buy a cooler since it doesn't come with one. A 6500 does come with a stock cooler so you could save $30 or so there. Me personally, that stock chunk of metal never even makes it out of the box, it's not worth my time. It's a personal choice, not worth the headache of fiddling with the stock tim, the cheap plastic pushpins plagued with problems, the potential for loud noise when the fan ramps up under load. Generally I keep my builds and they meet my needs for 4, 5, close to 6yrs at a stretch and the cooler stays on the machine all that time. Over 4yrs, $30 is something I can live with.

Some people upgrade every year or two and if that's their situation then cheaper parts may be the way to go. The way I see it, even if it were $100 extra if it's a device like a pc that I use daily it's worth it given the time I'll use it. If it sat in the corner collecting dust all week until I decided to check my email then no probably not.

To put it in perspective, I spent a weekend with some friends. We went and had a simple lunch, I helped pay for groceries for a cookout, we went bowling. Nothing fancy and it was over $100. A couple of nights skipped going out to eat over the course of a year will easily make up the cost difference. Then again I'm a pc enthusiast so it probably rates higher on my priorities than it may for someone else who just wants a machine to do a task.

In terms of time spent tinkering, it didn't take long at all. I made a few changes in the bios, tested with p95, asus rog realbench, intel burn test and xtreme tuning utility and it took all of maybe an hour or two. It's not something that requires time out of my day even once a week. If only gaming on it, then no overclocking isn't going to net you 10-20fps improvement on every game. If doing other tasks then yes it can be a benefit. It's not necessary but I consider it a perk. Just different ways of looking at it and overclocking isn't for everyone, it's just an option.

cothoffee · Jun 17, 2016

synphul :

My personal preference is overclocking. A cpu that's 'enough' tends to struggle sooner or later and by the time that happens a generation or so of cpu's and their motherboard sockets have passed meaning a new replacement is rather costly. With my 4690k overclocked I can easily get i5 6600 performance from it. It meant a z series board and a better cooler which were a bit more. I planned already to use an aftermarket cooler, for looks and for performance. Not everyone cares what it looks like or cares about noise. By going with a big air cooler even oc'd my i5 is whisper quiet and I like that.

On the other hand, If I had to upgrade to skylake it would mean more than $30-50 for a decent cooler and $20-30 for a nicer motherboard. It would mean a $200 cpu and another $130-150 motherboard. Ouch. The fewer times I have to do that, the better. Not counting having to buy ddr4 ram, having to reinstall windows etc. Not to mention the performance that people were waiting for to release with skylake I was enjoying for a good 12-18mo before it even hit store shelves. So to me personally it's worth it.

There's also the price/value factor. You mentioned z170-ar and the 6600k. A $160 motherboard isn't a 'requirement' to overclock. There are cheap z170 boards for $90-100 and solid oc choices in the form of $120 z170 boards. So is it a $150 investment over the top of a non k? Depends what parts you choose really. I can make it a $500 difference if I go with something redonkulous like a $500 z board like the gigabyte gaming g1. It also depends on which cooler, a $35 cryorig h7 or $100 h100i? In other words it 'can' be a lot more expensive to overclock but it doesn't 'have' to be based on parts chosen.

The 6600k itself is only around $20 more than an i5 6500. Granted with the k series you 'have' to buy a cooler since it doesn't come with one. A 6500 does come with a stock cooler so you could save $30 or so there. Me personally, that stock chunk of metal never even makes it out of the box, it's not worth my time. It's a personal choice, not worth the headache of fiddling with the stock tim, the cheap plastic pushpins plagued with problems, the potential for loud noise when the fan ramps up under load. Generally I keep my builds and they meet my needs for 4, 5, close to 6yrs at a stretch and the cooler stays on the machine all that time. Over 4yrs, $30 is something I can live with.

Some people upgrade every year or two and if that's their situation then cheaper parts may be the way to go. The way I see it, even if it were $100 extra if it's a device like a pc that I use daily it's worth it given the time I'll use it. If it sat in the corner collecting dust all week until I decided to check my email then no probably not.

To put it in perspective, I spent a weekend with some friends. We went and had a simple lunch, I helped pay for groceries for a cookout, we went bowling. Nothing fancy and it was over $100. A couple of nights skipped going out to eat over the course of a year will easily make up the cost difference. Then again I'm a pc enthusiast so it probably rates higher on my priorities than it may for someone else who just wants a machine to do a task.

In terms of time spent tinkering, it didn't take long at all. I made a few changes in the bios, tested with p95, asus rog realbench, intel burn test and xtreme tuning utility and it took all of maybe an hour or two. It's not something that requires time out of my day even once a week. If only gaming on it, then no overclocking isn't going to net you 10-20fps improvement on every game. If doing other tasks then yes it can be a benefit. It's not necessary but I consider it a perk. Just different ways of looking at it and overclocking isn't for everyone, it's just an option.

Thanks for your response. In regards to motherboards, I was actually considering accommodating overclocking into my budget by changing down to a MSI z170a pc mate because it has the features I currently want (usb 3.1, m.2 slot). This is sort of a separate question but do you think prioritizing greater cpu potential over the benefits of a gaming board make for an effective trade off?
My problem is that I can read through a hundred reviews and recommendations but never really get a proper handle on what's important (or what might be).

synphul · Jun 17, 2016

The cpu will play more of a role than the motherboard. The motherboard can have some influence on various benchmarks but there's at most around 5-10fps difference.

This benchmark is highlighting a gigabyte board but I'm showing it as a comparison of various boards tested by ocaholic. They test a few games and a few other programs, have a look at their various pages in the review.
http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=1655&page=14

Some non gaming comparisons done by techspot.
http://www.techspot.com/review/1073-intel-z170-motherboard-roundup/page7.html

Obviously if you want things like usb3.1 then select a board that supports it. Same with m.2, if you plan to use an m.2 drive at some point. Features/support for things you won't use won't benefit you. Overclocking on the cheapest z series board may be limited due to power phases to properly supply the cpu with the additional power it needs although an i5 requires less power than an i7. Even lower end z board should still support decent overclocking, many of the skylake boards are using more power phases than they previous did with haswell.

There really isn't such a thing as a 'gaming' motherboard. The board either has the features or it doesn't. Splashes of color or calling it gaming doesn't make it go faster. Even things like 'gaming' network connectivity like the killer nic that are supposed to prioritize gaming traffic have results that are a bit dubious. Makes for good marketing though, sort of like a gaming pc case. I've not found a case yet despite all the racecar styling that has given me better fps.

Notice in those benchmarks for gaming I posted the link to while there are a few differences most are showing fps well over 200fps. With a 60hz, 120hz, even a 144hz monitor I doubt it's going to matter much beyond theory. Regardless how many fps show on paper a 60hz screen is only refreshing 60x a second. What's going to happen to the other 140 frames?

cothoffee · Jun 17, 2016

synphul :

The cpu will play more of a role than the motherboard. The motherboard can have some influence on various benchmarks but there's at most around 5-10fps difference.

This benchmark is highlighting a gigabyte board but I'm showing it as a comparison of various boards tested by ocaholic. They test a few games and a few other programs, have a look at their various pages in the review.
http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=1655&page=14

Some non gaming comparisons done by techspot.
http://www.techspot.com/review/1073-intel-z170-motherboard-roundup/page7.html

Obviously if you want things like usb3.1 then select a board that supports it. Same with m.2, if you plan to use an m.2 drive at some point. Features/support for things you won't use won't benefit you. Overclocking on the cheapest z series board may be limited due to power phases to properly supply the cpu with the additional power it needs although an i5 requires less power than an i7. Even lower end z board should still support decent overclocking, many of the skylake boards are using more power phases than they previous did with haswell.

There really isn't such a thing as a 'gaming' motherboard. The board either has the features or it doesn't. Splashes of color or calling it gaming doesn't make it go faster. Even things like 'gaming' network connectivity like the killer nic that are supposed to prioritize gaming traffic have results that are a bit dubious. Makes for good marketing though, sort of like a gaming pc case. I've not found a case yet despite all the racecar styling that has given me better fps.

Notice in those benchmarks for gaming I posted the link to while there are a few differences most are showing fps well over 200fps. With a 60hz, 120hz, even a 144hz monitor I doubt it's going to matter much beyond theory. Regardless how many fps show on paper a 60hz screen is only refreshing 60x a second. What's going to happen to the other 140 frames?

I was mainly talking about BIOS support because I've never had a computer that could do those things and so can't conceptualize what I'd be missing out on, but it seems like you're saying it doesn't matter too much anyway. Thanks for your help, you've made this decision much more easier.

IInuyasha74 · Jun 17, 2016

Really the motherboard plays about the least effect on overall performance these days. Essentially, so long as it has a sufficient power delivery system so as not to induce thermal throttling, you are fine. You do want to look a bit at what sort of RAM clock speeds it supports with DDR4, but that's about it really.

After that, it all comes down to what features are key to you. For example, some people want an M.2 slot, which instantly removes H110 chipsets. Some want multi-GPU configurations, which technically can work on several chipsets, but to get the most performance out of it you are limited to Z170. If you want overclocking you are limited to Z170 also.

After you know what chipset you want, the rest of the board selection comes down to:

1. How much you want to overclock
2. Power design
3. DDR4 clock speed support
4. Ports
5. Bonus features (Essentially anything extra that may be nice but isn't really needed like debug LEDs)

Most people can eliminate the first three in seconds if they know enough about motherboards and if they don't want to overclock more than an average amount. As that is likely you, you just want a board with preferably a digital voltage controller chip, and at least a 6-phase power design. More would be better though. Eight is usually the golden number. Definitely want heatsinks on them as well. Then RAM support, most Z170 boards will be fine, but you want something that at least hits 3000 MHz with DDR4 to help avoid RAM issues.

For the BIOS, really don't worry about it anymore. The BIOS has come a long way, and it isn't as big a deal nowadays than it used to be. That doesn't mean it isn't important, but you will probably be okay with just about any of them.

Search

What are the benefits of overclocking?

cothoffee

Commendable

synphul

Gam3r01

Titan

IInuyasha74

Splendid

juanrdp

Honorable

synphul

Champion

cothoffee

Commendable

synphul

Champion

cothoffee

Commendable

IInuyasha74

Splendid

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page