Regarding General Overclocking Goals (First time overclock)

My question is:

What is the general idea behind overclocking?

Specifically, is the goal of overclocking supposed to be getting the lowest stable temperatures while getting the highest possible overclock?

I understand that all motherboards and processors work differently, but is the general idea of overclocking still the same?

In my case, I have an i7 920 processor with a P6T motherboard.

I'm using a bus speed of 200 with 19x multiplier. (3.8 ghz)

My core voltage is 1.184V

Will I be able to get the same performance with a low core voltage (i.e. 1.184V) as I would a high core voltage (i.e. 1.35V) with the same overclock?

Would a lower temperature result in longer life of the processor?

Thanks in advance.
10 answers Last reply
More about regarding general overclocking goals first time overclock
  1. everyone has different goals in their overclock. the general goal is to get more performance out of a cheaper chip. you need to check for stability with intelburntest. as far as temps go under 70 is the general accepted level.

    example: i have an e8500 which is at 3.8 right now. thats 700 over stock at stock voltage. it does 4.4 on air but at 1.4 vcore.

    temps @ 3.8 1.25v......60 under full load

    temps @ 4.4 1.425v....82 under full load.

    for me, 4.4 isnt worth the heat and voltage on air. to some it may be. as i said the goal is the same, squeeze more performance for free, but each person has their own comfort level.
  2. It's a balancing act between speed and Intel's recommended (or absolute if you are really courageous) maximum temperatures and voltage for your CPU chip. Some people will do a moderate overclock, "moderate" being defined as "run as fast as you can without increasing CPU voltage".

    eagles453809 said:
    as i said the goal is the same, squeeze more performance for free, ...

    Not hardly "free". You need better cooling and usually a better motherboard and better memory.
  3. Will I be able to get the same performance with a low core voltage (i.e. 1.184V) as I would a high core voltage (i.e. 1.35V) with the same overclock?

    Would a lower temperature result in longer life of the processor?


    Can anyone answer these two questions for me?
  4. pr1sm said:
    Will I be able to get the same performance with a low core voltage (i.e. 1.184V) as I would a high core voltage (i.e. 1.35V) with the same overclock?

    I'm not sure what you are asking. Always run with the lowest voltage that gives you the necessary stability at whatever frequency you are running.

    Now, if you ask this, "Will I be able to get the same performance with a low core voltage (i.e. 1.184V) as I would a high core voltage (i.e. 1.35V) with the same overclock? ", that answer is , "Probably not."

    pr1sm said:

    Would a lower temperature result in longer life of the processor?

    Theoretically, yes. Practically, it won't make a difference. Stay within Intel's maximum recommended temperature, and the computer that the chip is in will likely be obsolete before the CPU fails from overclocking.

    I don't think anyone has ever done any testing on this.

    Case in point, last summer (2008), I threw out a P233MMX system that I had running at 333 MHz (a 43% overclock). It was simply obsolete and I didn't need a 256 MB Win98 system lying around.
  5. Now, if you ask this, "Will I be able to get the same performance with a low core voltage (i.e. 1.184V) as I would a high core voltage (i.e. 1.35V) with the same overclock? ", that answer is , "Probably not."


    My question now is: Why not?

    If my system can run the same overclock at a low, but stable voltage, what makes it susceptible to not getting the same performance? What would be an indicator of low core voltage? Obviously the computer wouldn't turn on if it was too low, but would I not be able to get the same frames per second in video games, for example?
  6. pr1sm said:

    If my system can run the same overclock at a low, but stable voltage, what makes it susceptible to not getting the same performance?

    If you can run the same overclock "at a low, but stable voltage", you will get the same performance.

    What I'm trying to say is that once you start increasing speed past some undefined point varying with the CPU, you will need to increase CPU core voltage to maintain stability.

    Yes, if your CPU voltage is too low, your system won't turn on. But if your CPU voltage isn't high enough, you may be able to POST but not boot. POSTing puts very little load on a CPU.

    Or you may be able to boot, but not do anything that stresses the CPU. That's why programs such as Prime95 are used in stress testing. P95 loads each core to 100% of capacity. That increases heat. Hotter chips require more voltage, hence better cooling. From there, it is a juggling act between speed and CPU temperature limits and voltage.

    One of my systems has a Q9550 OC'd to 3.6 GHz. It will boot into Windows at 3.8 GHz, but crash when I try to do more than run the desktop. I have another system with a Q6600 in it. I can undervolt it by about .1 volts and run at stock speed and I can run at 3.0 GHz on the stock voltage. But anything more requires a voltage increase and a better heatsink to keep temperatures under control..
  7. pr1sm said:
    Will I be able to get the same performance with a low core voltage (i.e. 1.184V) as I would a high core voltage (i.e. 1.35V) with the same overclock?


    The general idea is that it's expected that higher OC's mean more voltage required. That's not always gonna hold tru. With all BIOS feature enabled, and CPU Voltage of 1.10 after Vdroop (set in BIOS at 1.1) I can hit BCLK of 176.4

    I started with 1.3 ..... never got to a stable 177. I have experimented w/ increased voltage but 1.3 / 1.4 even 1.45 doesn't to beans for me. So i went backwards and am not at 1.1 in BIOS (stability test running as I type). My next step is to start playing with other voltages like QPI. I ahve hit 4.2 Ghz with some BIOS features turned off....but haven't had time to try and push that further.

    Quote:
    Would a lower temperature result in longer life of the processor?


    IBM published a white paper several years ago that concluded that a drop of 10 degrees doubled HD life.....but impact was primarily mechanical and bearing related methinks. For electronics, generally as long as they stay within their design parameters, they should outlast their useful lives. But lower temps also means lower fan speeds which means more quiet. It also decreases room temp and the load on other components like your PSU.

    EDIT: Here's an oddball....dropped CPU voltage from 1.2 to 1.125 and was able to do BCLK at 177....failed at 180 tho :(
  8. JackNaylorPE said:

    IBM published a white paper several years ago that concluded that a drop of 10 degrees doubled HD life.....but impact was primarily mechanical and bearing related methinks.

    That's one reason I like my Antec 900 cases. I have never seen an HD temperature higher than 29 C. And one of them has two 1 TB WD Greens and a 640 Black in the lower drive bay.
  9. I'm reading 26-27 in the Antec 1200
  10. Yep. Can't beat the cooling. And there' nothing wrong with the cable management that cutting more holes in the motherboard tray won't fix:
    http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/264112-28-antec

    Although I shouldn't have to. :(
Ask a new question

Read More

Intel Overclocking Core Processors