I have an Intel E8400 processor (3.0 GHz Core 2 Duo) sitting on an ASUS P5Q SE/R motherboard link and using an ASUS V72 92mm cooler link
I decided to try overclocking one night as me and a friend were comparing 3dmark06 scores. I bumped the FSB from 333 to 400 MHz and I went from 3.0 to 3.6 GHz. My 3dMark score jumped up about 800 points.
I ended up putting it back to the default setting a little bit because A) I'm happy with my system's stock performance (the most graphically demanding game I run is Left 4 Dead, and it runs it flawlessly at 1680x1050 on my GeForce 9600 GT) but mostly B) I'm worried about reliability and the life of the processor, which leads me to my question.
Is it going to cut down on the life and reliability if I leave my FSB at 400 MHz? If not, I'd just assume run it faster all the time, especially now that I have Windows 7 64-bit installed.
1. OCing reduces very little life if done right meaning no insane voltages,etc. You will perhaps loose 1 year of the CPUs total life of 5+ years.
2. Why OC if you don't need it? OC it if you want to get high benchmark scores,etc. Unless your apps benefit from OCing, there isn't much point in OCing.
sorry i have to object to this post completely.
1) it is only a guess that overclocking will kill your processor faster. there is tangible evidence that heat will kill computer parts quickly - combined with excess voltage will cause electron migration. but that is it... there is also another piece of evidence more widely adhered to called sudden death syndrome which is basically overvolting like crazy ie: stock voltage 1.3 -> 3.0.
shadow i completely disagree with your arbitrary numbers "1" and "5" being thrown in there for a life of a processor. my 450 mghz celeron still runs strong today and its atleast 10 years old. I know of people overclocking ancient machines and have them still running. my cousin has his 1.5 gig barton overclocked and it runs fine to this day.
conclusion: overclocking killing your processor is absurd on many levels. your other components will die a lot sooner than any processor ever will. overclock it.
1. Yes, the 1 and 5 years were approximations for the current 45 and 65nm CPUs.
2. OCing INDEED KILLS CPUs at the insane voltages (1.8v+) that are used in extreme OCing. Ask vince,et al and they will tell you of their many dead CPUs under LN2,etc. Notice that I said insane voltages.
3. I also said "OCing reduces very little life". I never said OCing kills a CPU providing no insane voltages.
4. The OP's fine at 3Ghz wit the E8400, why boot speed when not needed?
Sigh. I was just thinking if I want to get into the middle of this. Seems like just last month we had one of these threads that nearly devolved into a flame war.
All the regulars here agree that overclocking, if recommended thermal and voltage limits are maintained, has little practical effect on CPU lifetimes. The CPU, indeed the whole platform, is more likely to go obsolete before the CPU fails from any reasonable overclocking.
The 1 year and 5 year times are "standard" industry estimates of the current Core2's.
But if you want a really funny "estimate", look at the mtbf rating of the WD 1 TB RE3 hard drive. It's 1,2000,000 hours. That's about 135 years of continuous operation. I am willing to bet that WD did not design it in the 1870's, build ten of them, run them continuously, have five fail by this year, and so declare a 1.2 million hour mtbf rate.
---------- Overclocking since 1978 - Z80 (TRS-80) from 1.77 MHz to 2.01 MHz