Is overclocking cost affective

[SciPunk]

Sure you can save money by buying a lower MHz chip and overclocking it up to the speed of the next CPU in that product line. Could save you $100 or so.

But then you need a decent CPU cooling system, and an "enthusiast" mother board, and probably some premium memory. Whereas, if you just bought the higher MHz CPU in the first place, you could save some money by using the stock cooler, stripped down MoBo, and Value ram.

So in the end, appart from all the fun and bragging rights, does overclocking save you money ?

 

[jaguarskx]

It depends on if you are talking about the casual overclocker or the extreme overclocker, and the system itself.

I would argue that casual overclocking for the Athlon 64 is easier than for the Pentium 4 because of lower power consumption and heat. Thus it does it very easy to overclock 100MHz - 150MHz (200MHz imay be possible with some tweaking) with stock cooling a mobo that allows overclocking (not necessarily an "enthusiast" mobo) and the typical CAS2.5 value RAM from a good company like Corsair which should be easily to OC to 420/210, and a little bit higher with some tweaks including increasing the voltage. Getting it to run at 440/220 takes a bit more effort.

For the enthusiast sure they would scoff at a mere 100MHz - 200MHz boost. But it's a free performance boost for anyone else. Enthusiast want's the bragging right, sure why not? That the competitive spirit of your typcial teenage gamer/geek to wants to blast through everthing in Quake 4 and leave no one else alive.

I currently OC my Athlon XP-M, but my next rig will probably run at stock speed, but I'm going to buy the fastest Conroe or AM2 I can afford.

 

[custompcz]

Yes, it is cost effective. The level of performance achieved more than makes up for the slightly higher cost of "enthusiast" components. Sometimes it's not even about a higher price to be paid but a wiser choice of components instead.

There are just not enough OC vs. Stock clock benchmark comparisons across various price/performance levels available to make the benefits readily known to the average joe.

 

[mpjesse]

If you get the right CPU, it's definitely cost effective. The disparity in prices of high performance memory tends to be less than that of CPU modelw.

Additionally, it doesn't necessarily take super high performance memory to overclock if we're talking about 200mhz. (Which is usually the difference in clock speed between AMD and Intel model processors)

In most cases, if overclocking 200mhz, you don't need "enthusiast" products. Most OEM HSF's do a good job and all AMD motherboards are generally very overclockable because the NB chip doesn't need to be overclocked.

 

[steckman]

I can say firsthand that "casual" overclocking is cost effective. I have an Athlon 64 3000+ and had the opportunity to upgrade it to a 3200+ for a small fee. I decided to see if I could push my processor instead and overclocked it to 3200+ speeds ... for free. No special cooling equipment needed.
My friend has a Celeron D 2.66GHz. We bumped it to 2.8GHz with the stock heatsink/fan and the regular case fans he had. Once again, "free" performance enhancement.
Now have I seen people go overboard on their cooling solutions? Sure, I've seen people spend more to overclock their rig and get the same performance as components that could be purchased for less. But to those people, the dollar value isn't solely in the performance increase.

 

[chuckshissle]

That's one of my main reason for overclocking. Get a mid range cpu and overclock it to increase it's performance to nearly to that of the high-end processors. But overclocking has a bad side of it as well, as improper voltage and cooling can result in shorter life span and or demise of the cpu.

There are some factors to see as some would get a $500 cpu and spend $300 for water cooling to overclock it. So I would say overclocking with a hsf is cost effective as I have done it before using a hsf and 20% cpu oc.

 

[uber_g]

very effective


got my AMD 64 3200+ to AMD 64 3800+ levels


from 2.0 ghz to 2.4ghz

it was very easy

saved me some Cash too

 

[SidVicious]

The "free" performance is a nice bonus (an FX-60 does cost 1000$, my CPU is slightly faster than that, even though it is a Manchester core) but the real reason that I got involved in overclocking is the challenge and the enjoyement I get from doing all the tweaking and tinkering.

 

[uber_g]

- nice

 

[K8MAN]

Is putting NOS, turbo, intercooling, and new tranny, complete engine rebuild and so on into an already fast car practical? Hell's no but its fun as hell while it lasts.

 

[roncpem]

i ave an asus a8v motherboard & an amd 64 3200+ that normaly runs at 2ghtz, it is now running at 2.4 ghtz on stock heat sink & fan & no other speacial conditions. 2.4 make this a 3800+ now. check the prices of the 2 and see the differance.

 

[bilbo3660]

For the mild overclock that you are talking about "enthusiast" components aren't required. So yes it is worthwhile...plus it'll make you feel good. lol :lol:

 

[uber_g]

For the mild overclock that you are talking about "enthusiast" components aren't required. So yes it is worthwhile...plus it'll make you feel good. lol :lol:

or it could blow up in your Face


mehh



j/k

 

[gOJDO]

Yes it is cost effective.
You don't need the "enthusiast" mainboard, just a decend board with some options that can help overclocking the system while it remains stable.
You don't need special RAM, there is something called "RAM divider" or you can run your RAM at its normal speed, while overclocking the processor.
See my spec in signature, I have no "enthusiast" mainboard, cheap DDR400 CL2.5 and cooper cooler with 90mm fan that costs $30. With some tweaking I am achieving better performance than the FX-55 which costs double or triple of the price of my Venice 3200+.

 

[angry_ducky]

If I could get my 3700+ to 2.8GHz, I'd have an FX57. Same core, same cache, same 90nm process. The only difference is that my CPU cost $220; an FX57 is $810. The only problem is that it's not stable at 2.42GHz, even when using a memory divider, upping the volage, and lowering the HTT multiplier.

 

[armeniandave]

If you are careful about what chip you buy then overclocking can save you a bundle. I wanted an FX-60 but it costs about $1000 right now. So after plenty of research I bought an Opteron 170 for about $400. Stock it runs at 2Ghz but with a little easy overclocking it is now at 2.61Ghz, the same speed as the stock FX-60. Temps didnt go up very much and I am still running stock voltage. I did put a Zalman 9500 CPU fan on it but that was only about $60. So I saved about $540, so I think it was definetly worth it. If you do your homework and research the overclockability of the chip you want then overclocking can save you a bundle of cash.

 

[k2000k]

Cost effective unless you spend a ton of money on premium gear, or if you manage to completely fry your computer in the process of overclocking.

 

[SidVicious]

Cost effective unless you spend a ton of money on premium gear, or if you manage to completely fry your computer in the process of overclocking.

Right, overclockers are a clique of filthy rich pyromaniacs...

Seriously, You're the absolute zero of cluelessness. Any dumber and you'd rip a hole through timespace.

 

[1Tanker]

If I could get my 3700+ to 2.8GHz, I'd have an FX57. Same core, same cache, same 90nm process. The only difference is that my CPU cost $220; an FX57 is $810. The only problem is that it's not stable at 2.42GHz, even when using a memory divider, upping the volage, and lowering the HTT multiplier.

Hmmmm......If i could get my P4 2.4A to 10GHz......i wouldn't want a

Conroe :roll:

 

[endyen]

Sorry. Even my lowly 3200 can do 2.6. At least now we know why you're angry.

 

[mad_fitzy]

AMEN

 

[bront]

Keep in mind, that memory Overclocking doesn't get you much performance wise, so you can always run a RAM divider. Of course, the difference between average memory, and the high end I got was $16 for 2 x 512 MB.

And I got a good "enthusiest" board for less than some of the more common boards out there ($85).

The only "expense" I had was the cooler (Zalman 9500), which I would have gotten anyway simply to drop temps.

My result? 25% OC of memory and CPU. Not too bad.

 

[angry_ducky]

Sorry. Even my lowly 3200 can do 2.6. At least now we know why you're angry.

I was angrier before, when my comptuer was an HP, because I couldn't overclock at all. Plus, that HP case was so badly designed, the CPU got to over 60C at load, and it eventually fried the board.

I recycled the HP no-name brand RAM, which won't run at anything over DDR400, so I'm using a memory divider. I've set the HTT multiplier to 4x, raised the CPU voltage from 1.4 to 1.5V, but it's still unstable at 2.42GHz. I'll get a BSOD even before the logon screen appears.

 

[gOJDO]

angry_ducky: Well, maybe your HP motherboard is limiting the ability for overclocking.
In my case, I boted WindowsXP on my Venice 3200+ at 3.0GHz but with some proper cooling. I made 1 benchmark with Sandra, but the sytem freezed on the next one.
It was winter, my case was outdoors and i putted a big 40cm fan directly blowing on to the motherboard.
The hardware:
Asus A8N5X nForce4 s939 PCIe
AMD Athlon64 s939 3200+ Venice Rev E6
2x512MB Mosel Vitelic DDR400 dualsided CL2.5 4-4-8 CR2 2.5v
The setup:
BUS: HTT 1200MHz (4x300)
CPU: 3GHz (10x300) 1.55v
RAM: 400 CL2.5 3-3-7 CR1 2.6v

When normal conditions, I can boot WindowsXP at max 2.83GHz, but system is not stable.
At 2.75 1.55v, everything is perfect, super Pi 32M passes, Rightmark memory stability test is OK, never freezed or made errors while working and gaming.
Anyway at that freq and that voltage they CPU is very hot and the cooler fan goes on my nerves(the Q-FAN controll is on, i want quiet machine).
Thats why I am overclocking my system only at 2.7, while it remains stable at 1.5v, therefore producing less heat.
I have changed the RAM modules with another cheap, see in my spec, so I run my RAM at 450MHz CL2.5 2-3-5 CR1 2.75v with no problems. I payed 75 euros for both 512MB modules and I don't care if I fry them, I have 1 year warranty. I will probably buy new system and new RAM before it ends.
All the overclocks I have made on this hardware are with cooper cooler with 90cm fan that costs 30$. I bought for the s754 Athlon64 2800+ I had before, but was not that much overclockable, maybe becouse of the motherboard K8N nForce3 250 s754

 

[wun911]

I dont think its THAT cost effective.

If you were to spend a modest $300 AUS on water cooling that money could easily upgrade a CPU from P4 3.0 to a P4 3.4 and have change left over for more RAM or a new HD.

Instead of getting a P4 3.0 and trying to OC it to a 3.4 with the aid of water cooling just stick with the factory HSF. Not only do you save time (setting up a water cooler will take a couple of days) but you also get to keep the Warranty on your CPU.

However I must admit you can keep the water cooler for your next PC 3-4 years later it might be worthwhile. But by then it probably wont be compatible with the new chipsets sockets etc etc.