Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Highest Base Clock? Worth it?

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
a b V Motherboard
a c 100 K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
May 5, 2010 2:44:51 PM

Hi I'm just wondering what overclocking enthusiasts have done for highest base clock, and if they think it makes a difference. I got mine stable as high as 220 with underclocked CPU and RAM, but I didn't really like how much more voltage it took. At 230 I just couldn't get it to boot so I figure 220 is the wall. Now, I know in general a faster BCLK will mean a faster mobo but is there really any advantage? Given the odd number, it makes the multiplying for RAM speeds off so it would take lots of fiddling to get the RAM maxed out at the abnormal speed.

When I had it at 220, approx 3.5ghz CPU and 1420mhz RAM, I ran LinX to see if it had a higher effeciency/smaller difference between max theoretical speed and actual. I can't say I saw an improvement. So where would the improvement be? Is it just a case of if you have super overclocked components it can help, like 2000+mhz RAM and 4ghz+ CPU? Right now I'm at 200BCLK and it works great for making nice CPU and RAM frequencies, and temps are very acceptable.

Best solution

a b V Motherboard
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
May 5, 2010 6:12:56 PM

Depends on what you intend on using the computer for - As you point out, a Higher bclk "should" make for better numbers in certain, throughput related, benchmarks. But as you've discovered, it's not all that black and white since you can end up bottlenecked elsewhere in the system and not receive the expected improvements.

Now - as far as your overall system, the factor here is what your target is and how far you're willing to push your components to get there. If (like me), you are looking for some efficient 24/7/365 settings, then your results should tell you that you've likely found the boundary between sensible and not so sensible. Someone looking for a more aggressive result may well say it's time to get the heavy artillery and overcome the "FSB Hole" they found at 230.

Though judging from this, and your other posts, it appears you have been experimenting around 3 and a half Ghz in order to find the most efficient combination. Looking at your findings, I'd be inclined to say that your 200 bclk setup may just be a great place to plant a flag and declare victory. :) 

Share
a b V Motherboard
a c 100 K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
May 5, 2010 7:28:53 PM

Best answer selected by Wolfram23.
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
a c 100 K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
May 5, 2010 7:29:08 PM

Good point(s)! I generally only use my PC in the evenings, maybe game for a few hours and the rest of the time light usage - internet and/or videos etc. So I think I can stand going a little aggressive without too much issue in terms of having it not die on me before 3 or 4 years. You're right tho, I think I'll stick with 200 since it's easy to work with. For some odd reason, 3.6ghz is somewhat unstable and 3.8ghz seems to be not only more stable but more efficient, and only producing an extra 6C or so. As of this moment I have it running 25 iterations of LinX at home, I'm hoping it'll pass :) 
m
0
l
!