What's with all the overclocking?

[puki]

People seem to be buying new processors and then overclocking them straight away. What's with this trend?

I mean, are we at a point whereby people think the dual core route is a bit of a waste - I mean, baring in mind quad core.

Are Intel and AMD going down the wrong route here?

How many people are overclocking for gaming use?

I find it odd as a long time ago AMD went 64 bit - where the hell are all the 64 bit games? Now that we are in dual and quad core territory, are we going to see games that utilise these cores? There is hardly a glut of 64 bit games - how a long ago did 64 bit processors arrive?

In a nutshell - who is all of this for? Are Intel and AMD focussing on gaming here or is there another motive for the cores?

How many of you are gamers and are trying to push these processors for games?

 

[MadHacker]

you seem to be stuck on the fact that only thing to use PC's for is gaming...

try all the aplications that can use multicore... and there are lots of them...

 

[Assman]

ocing is mostly done to increase overall perf of the rig for rendering/processing/encoding media

How many of you are gamers and are trying to push these processors for games?

for games you'd have to "push" vga not the cpu(ocing cpu won't give you much of a fps gain)

 

[Unearthly]

Game developers are slow to catch on to coding 64-bit and multithreaded applications for several reasons. There is less money in it than say, professional development tools, so the incentive to innovate is less. It's also a fact that the CPU isn't often the limiting factor in a lot of these 3D games with lots of fancy effects, so optimizing it isn't a priority.

As for 64 bit, that's mostly due to the market. You need a 64 bit OS to run 64 bit games and right now Windows XPx64 has poor driver support so very few people use it. Therefore, why would they rewrite a whole lot of code to optimize a small percentage of their users performance? Even once Vista comes up pushing 64 bit more, there will still be a large amount of users on 32bit XP, and you want their money too. You can't simply alienate all 32 bit users.

Finally, I doubt most people OC new processors for games. I personally OC'ed my processor so that I could scale video resolutions using a post processor. The faster my clock speed, the higher the resolution I can scale to and more post processing effects I can apply. (The scaling has higher quality than simple 'zoom' scaling of graphics card).

 

[MrSiko]

Overclocking for me, and for most participants I suspect, is solely to get the most out of the components that I have shelled out my very-hard-earned cash for.

I am most happy with my OC 6800GT and OC 3700+ SanDiego.

And while on the topic of overclocking, I will build my next system early next year, based on Core2Duo E6600 and a 8800GTS (they will unlock the OC, once there are enough in the chain and, wait for it, the R600 hits the streets at the end of Jan...)

Basically, if you bought a car, and I said that if you give me ten minutes I will safely shave a second off the 0-60 and add ten mph to the top speed for nothing, I reckon you would accept. Especially if I showed you testimonials doing exactly that...

Bang-For-Buck FTW

 

[puki]

you seem to be stuck on the fact that only thing to use PC's for is gaming...

Well, I am fishing for how many people are gamers.

You see, this whole multi-core idea is resulting in quad core (and beyond?). If this is of not much use to a gamer then I am wondering what the point is? There must be a fair percentage of PC owners that use them mainly for gaming.

So, is dual core/64 bit a waste? As a gamer, I might want a faster, single core, CPU. The question would really be the demand for this product.

 

[Unearthly]

If this is of not much use to a gamer then I am wondering what the point is?

The point is, the majority of the market isn't gamers. It is useful to some people.

Also, dual-core is useful if you run multiple programs while playing your games. Like say, if you are running Ventrilo, an RSS reader, uTorrent, Thunderbird, Firefox, and a game at the same time, dual core helps. That's one reason I like my dual core.

 

[tool_462]

I overclock my CPU/GPU for more performance for my money and for the hobby of it. Cooling and tweaking timings, voltages and ratios to achieve optimal performance is fun for me. Along with many others.

Yes I game, yes I overclock to gain FPS.

 

[Assman]

I overclock my CPU/GPU for more performance for my money and for the hobby of it. Cooling and tweaking timings, voltages and ratios to achieve optimal performance is fun for me. Along with many others.

second

 

[fishboi]

Why, cause I can!

 

[tool_462]

I overclock my CPU/GPU for more performance for my money and for the hobby of it. Cooling and tweaking timings, voltages and ratios to achieve optimal performance is fun for me. Along with many others.

second

Third.



and first.

 

[chuckshissle]

Why not, if you can get your system to go faster then why hold it back? Well you may not need overclocking to browse faster but in gaming it squeezes out a bit more performance. Sure it cuts down on the components lifespan but then again is wouldn't last that long until it gets outdated.

 

[fishboi]

Word! Bringing down a components lifespan from 8 to 5 years is irrelevant. The poor Duo will have nothing on the Quantum Hexa-Nano in 2010, so who cares!

 

[fishboi]

One thing I should ask, is that do you guys think performance decreases slowly over time, or does the processor just bomb out one day. ie. If you bench an OC'ed processor at time 0, then bench it again at time 0+5, which all other variables remaining constant, does the processor actually perform worse, even through its still working?

 

[gm0n3y]

Agreed. Also, as mentioned above, we haven't seen many 64 bit games because almost all games are written for windows, which is only 32 bit (for now, not including 64bit xp). Once Vista is out, I am sure that games will start to be written (a year or so down the road) taking advantage of the 64 bit platform.

As for dual core support, game designers are taking advantage of this as we speak. They can't just jump into a new technology as soon as it comes out, they need to wait for some market acceptance. Valve has already announced that they will be putting out a patch for HL2 to allow it to take advantage of multi-core systems. It is only a matter of time before almost all games will be 64bit and multi-core capable.

 

[darkstar782]

There is a big difference between the switch to 64bit and the switch to Dual Core.

If an application vendor makes a 64 bit app, it WILL NOT run on anything less than a 64 bit CPU running a 64 bit OS. WinXP Pro x64 is unpopular mainly due to driver reasons even amongst those running 64bit CPUs.

If an application vendor makes a multithreaded app, it will run fine on single core CPUs, and might even gain a performance boost in Single core Intel CPUs with HT.

Even if the Apps are not multithreaded, there are still multitasking advantages. Even running 1 app + OS is multitasking in a way, this is why people report that their new multicore CPUs are more responsive than their old single cores.

Hence, the multithreaded switch will happen much quicker than the 64bit switch.

 

[tool_462]

I have read both sides of the phenomenon known as electron migration. I think if you benched my D805 @ 4.0ghz today it would be a little less than my D805 @ 4.0ghz a year ago when I first got it. Not due to any hardware issue, but just the slowing down of my XP install.

From what I have experienced, overclocking will damage a CPU or GPU, but it will happen either instantaneous or damn near instant. It will slowly boot one time, load windows ultra slow and two reboots later be dead.

JumpingJack would be a better suited person to explain how electron migration works and why, if at all, the performance could decline.

 

[3lfk1ng]

Ugh...

Ocing is not just for gamers....it does healp a considerable amount in games...but it helps with many other things as well.

When you pay $300 for a processor(e6600)...instaed of $900(x6800)...wouldnt you like to save that $600 and just oc the $300 processor to outperform the $900 processor? It just a better bang for the buck.

Same goes for Video cards...

Many of us are very price conscious and therefore a little overclocking can go a long long way for our machines, some of us do this as a hobby.

I have read both sides of the phenomenon known as electron migration. I think if you benched my D805 @ 4.0ghz today it would be a little less than my D805 @ 4.0ghz a year ago when I first got it. Not due to any hardware issue, but just the slowing down of my XP install.

I used to be able to oc my xp2500+ to 2.4ghz....now It cannot go further than 2.087 even after a full format and reinstall of xp pro(mesely 200mhz overclock from stock) So I believe that over time a processor will loose its oomp....either that or my motherboard is serverely aging (which isnt the case because the mobo isnt generating heat like a processor is)

 

[tool_462]

I would be interested to see how it would do in a different mobo of the same model. There may or may not be any proof or validity to this, but it seems that Athlons die slowly (or at least their max OC dies slowly) while Pentiums are more quickly. I have only had a few experiences and haven't researched it much, but that is what I have seen.

Chances are it is all just random and my above observation means zero.

 

[derek2006]

On my Geforce MX 4000 I was first able to get up to 380mhz stable. After a few months I had to decrease it. It's been alive for about a year so far since I got it from wal-mart(worst buy ever made, discovered newegg shortly after was pissed). Well anyway now It artifacts at anything over 340 mhz heatsink isn't clogged with dust either. Default speed is 275 mhz. So yes I believe overclocks degrade overtime. This is a GPU though but it's still is made of the same parts as a CPU. IE. Transistors, silicon, and such.

 

[toosober]

This sounds like a Trolish thread, but I will reply anyway.
Overclocking is not a new trend, my 8088 was over clocked, my 486 dx4 100 was overclocked, my celeron 300a was overlcocked. It is not just more frames per second in games, I also do it to rip music, videos and edit photos and video. Why pay top dollar for a top performer when I can over clock for the 1/3 or 1/4 the cost?
Ever have your antivirus kick in for a scan when your plugging a way at an email, or playing a game? Ever download torrent files, surf the net and rip a movie or burn a dvd at the same time? These things no longer crush my computer since I have gone to a dual core.

 

[puki]

So, would anyone swap their Core 2 Duo for a 5GHz single core (if it existed) that didn't have much scope for overclocking?

 

[Assman]

no chance in hell, i love my c2d like a huckleberry pie

 

[djgandy]

So, would anyone swap their Core 2 Duo for a 5GHz single core (if it existed) that didn't have much scope for overclocking?

It's not that simple though. Look at quad core.

4 cores, and an easy oc to 3ghz...So why don't they make a 12ghz processor? Because they can't. Not exactly sure of the extreme technical details, but i'm pretty sure laws of physics are in there

Also in reply to your original question. People are more overclocking mad these days because the core2duo line have huge headroom for overclocking
That's why they are so popular. You can buy the E6300 and get the performance of a stock X6800 with ease

 

[caamsa]

Ok if everyone in the world had a dual core cpu what percentage would actually use both cores on a regular basis? Call me old fashioned but I usually do one thing at a time. I never find myself burning a cd, downloading a movie, playing BF2 and surfing the net all at the same time.

But im sure it is nice to be able to.

Heck 100 years from now we might have bio-cpu's that evolve as needed. 100 cores not enough well the cpu just split and made another core......and it's a boy! :roll: