Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is overclocking my i7 @ 4.5 Ghz doing anything for my gaming?

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
January 24, 2012 5:32:08 PM

Is an overclock even necessary for my purposes?

I purchased a 2k rig a few weeks ago with the sole purpose of gaming. And by purchasing the 2600k I was eager to have it overclocked. (I know an i5 would have been just as good)

Not knowing what to do I flipped hit the TPU Switch on my ASUS motherboard. It did an auto overclock and get me the following results under heavy load.

I am running an i7 2600k and benching it with prime95..

Core speed - 4.4 MHz
Volts 1.376.V

Core Temps:
Core #0 Max 63 c
Core #1 Max 70 c
Core #2 Max 69 c
Core #3 Max 68 c

http://i.imgur.com/Bwz1g.png

Lastly here are my parts:
Intel Core i7-2600K 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor
Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler
Asus P8Z68-V PRO/GEN3 ATX LGA1155 Motherboard
Corsair Vengeance 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory
Western Digital Caviar Black 500GB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive
Crucial M4 128GB 2.5" Solid State Disk
Gigabyte Radeon HD 7970 3GB Video Card
Cooler Master HAF X ATX Full Tower Case
Corsair 850W ATX12V / EPS12V Power Supply
Asus DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS DVD/CD Writer

Again is the overclock even needed at this point?


a b K Overclocking
January 24, 2012 5:41:21 PM

no need past that but that overclock is not good.

manually overclock it by setting the vcore to 1.300 and the multi to 44. if it doesnt boot then go to 1.305. if it does boot prime test for a few hours. if it passes go to 1.295. keep repeating that till it blue screens. when/if it does raise the vcore up .005 volts.

edit- oh and you need to run prime 95 longer then 2 minutes to get accurate max temps.
m
0
l
January 24, 2012 5:43:39 PM

cbrunnem said:
no need past that but that overclock is not good.

manually overclock it by setting the vcore to 1.300 and the multi to 44. if it doesnt boot then go to 1.305. if it does boot prime test for a few hours. if it passes go to 1.295. keep repeating that till it blue screens. when/if it does raise the vcore up .005 volts.



I was afraid fipping that switch would be as good as doing it manually in my bios.

So you want to see my volts as close to or lower than 1.3, is that correct?

m
0
l
Related resources
a b K Overclocking
January 24, 2012 5:44:55 PM

hopefully lower but hyperthreading tends to make them have to run more voltage. it should boot up at 1.3 and even 1.285.

oh and you need to run prime 95 longer then 2 minutes to get accurate max temps.
m
0
l
January 24, 2012 5:47:41 PM

No it is not needed. My 2600 works on 4,2GHz and when I am playing BF3 the CPU is used in 50%, moreover when I turn of 2 cores, FPS does not drop at all. I would change a default cooler for something more efficient because temps are prety high. 4,4 GHz is not a good result. I am sure you will be able to get at least 4,8GHz or even more than 5GHz
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
January 24, 2012 5:52:09 PM

Get Fraps and follow instructions for showing FPS onscreen and logging.
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
January 24, 2012 5:52:52 PM

7ccccc7 said:
No it is not needed. My 2600 works on 4,2GHz and when I am playing BF3 the CPU is used in 50%, moreover when I turn of 2 cores, FPS does not drop at all. I would change a default cooler for something more efficient because temps are prety high. 4,4 GHz is not a good result. I am sure you will be able to get at least 4,8GHz or even more than 5GHz

you would benefit from a overclock then. if your consistently hitting 50% usage on a 2600k in a game that cant use more then 4 cores then your cpu is bottlenecking

he cant hit 4.8-5 on that cooler. to much heat.
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
January 24, 2012 5:56:32 PM

Prime 95 will take at least 20 to 30 minutes to stabilize. If you watch the CPU temp it will rise to 80C or more in that time then settle back down after the heat sink and fan start to have an effect on temps.
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
January 24, 2012 6:00:56 PM

7ccccc7 said:
No it is not needed. My 2600 works on 4,2GHz and when I am playing BF3 the CPU is used in 50%, moreover when I turn of 2 cores, FPS does not drop at all. I would change a default cooler for something more efficient because temps are prety high. 4,4 GHz is not a good result. I am sure you will be able to get at least 4,8GHz or even more than 5GHz



BF3 doesn't even use more then 2 cores, well it might but it doesn't increase fps, check the benchies: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graph...
m
0
l
January 24, 2012 6:12:16 PM

It use all for cores because all cores during gameplay is loaded in similar way. If two cores are used in 100% and 2 other in 10% it mean that game use only 2. But if 4 are loaded in 50%....
m
0
l
January 24, 2012 6:15:18 PM

cbrunnem said:
you would benefit from a overclock then. if your consistently hitting 50% usage on a 2600k in a game that cant use more then 4 cores then your cpu is bottlenecking

he cant hit 4.8-5 on that cooler. to much heat.


For your information i7 2600 has only 4 cores not 8 as you probably think. CPU bottlenecking would be if the game would use CPU in this range 90%-100%
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
January 24, 2012 6:24:47 PM

mouse24 said:
BF3 doesn't even use more then 2 cores, well it might but it doesn't increase fps, check the benchies: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graph...


thats single player and thats a whole different discussion. online mode will use 4 cores. dont believe me go into your bios and only activate two cores.

7ccccc7 said:
It use all for cores because all cores during gameplay is loaded in similar way. If two cores are used in 100% and 2 other in 10% it mean that game use only 2. But if 4 are loaded in 50%....


100 + 100 + 10 + 10 +0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 220/8 = 27%
50*4 = 200/8 = 25%
100*4 = 400/8 equals 50%

you have an i7, that means you have 4 cores and 8 threads. task manager recognizes a thread as a core when it computes cpu usage so if you have 50% usage during bf3 ( which can use a maximum of 4 cores ) you will have 4 cores basically maxed out.

7ccccc7 said:
For your information i7 2600 has only 4 cores not 8 as you probably think. CPU bottlenecking would be if the game would use CPU in this range 90%-100%


four cores eight threads.

those percentages are just wrong. no game that i know of can use 100% of all 8 threads an i7 has.
m
0
l
January 24, 2012 6:32:47 PM

I am completely lost in the BF/cores convo...

so will going back to stock speed decrease my performance in gaming?

I intend to run fraps with logging when I get home at my current speed, shut down and flip the tpu switch (normal) and log again.

But any information would be helpful.
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
January 24, 2012 6:52:18 PM

plasticslug said:
I am completely lost in the BF/cores convo...

so will going back to stock speed decrease my performance in gaming?

I intend to run fraps with logging when I get home at my current speed, shut down and flip the tpu switch (normal) and log again.

But any information would be helpful.


in some games yes and some games no.
m
0
l
January 24, 2012 11:54:22 PM

cbrunnem said:
thats single player and thats a whole different discussion. online mode will use 4 cores. dont believe me go into your bios and only activate two cores.



100 + 100 + 10 + 10 +0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 220/8 = 27%
50*4 = 200/8 = 25%
100*4 = 400/8 equals 50%

you have an i7, that means you have 4 cores and 8 threads. task manager recognizes a thread as a core when it computes cpu usage so if you have 50% usage during bf3 ( which can use a maximum of 4 cores ) you will have 4 cores basically maxed out.



four cores eight threads.

those percentages are just wrong. no game that i know of can use 100% of all 8 threads an i7 has.

m
0
l
January 24, 2012 11:56:42 PM

You are wrong again because I disabled HT before I was testing. I is 50% load on all cores without HT.
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
January 25, 2012 12:06:46 AM

7ccccc7 said:
You are wrong again because I disabled HT before I was testing. I is 50% load on all cores without HT.


cool beans, way to get to the end of a discussion to mention that. i was just going off your info you gave so its all on you bud. they say your only as good as the info your given.
m
0
l
January 25, 2012 12:18:57 AM

cbrunnem said:
cool beans, way to get to the end of a discussion to mention that. i was just going off your info you gave so its all on you bud. they say your only as good as the info your given.


LOL you thought the HT was enabled but you did not asked about it. Next time don't suppose it just ask and check it.
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
January 25, 2012 12:29:29 AM

7ccccc7 said:
LOL you thought the HT was enabled but you did not asked about it. Next time don't suppose it just ask and check it.


who buys an i7 and just turns hyperthreading off? less then the amount who leave it on.
m
0
l
January 25, 2012 12:51:16 AM

cbrunnem said:
who buys an i7 and just turns hyperthreading off? less then the amount who leave it on.


Lol, yeah, you buy an i7 for its HT, otherwise, an an i5 is good enough, i've seen BF3 use like 40% of my CPU at 4.7ghz with the game maxed out.

I'm actually thinking of down clocking my cpu to 4.0-4.5 tops.
m
0
l
January 25, 2012 12:51:41 AM

Wrong again If you would read some more you would know that for Battlefield it is better to have HT off because if you will set it to on you lose about 5 FPS. This game does not like HT. HT in some apps will cause performance drop rather than increase. Oh and by the way I tested it again with HT on and it use 8 threads in similar way from 25% to 30%
m
0
l
January 25, 2012 12:59:12 AM

I know some games perform a bit worse with it on, but with my setup, it really doesnt maker a difference(plus i run a ton of background processes), i never drop from 60fps with vsync on any game maxed, except for the witcher 2 with uber sampling.

So I can't be bothered turning it on and off when I game. Since I run my comp on 24/7.
m
0
l
January 25, 2012 1:02:07 AM

I wrote it to cbrunnem. I also run it maxed out but that is not the point of dicussion.
m
0
l
January 25, 2012 1:15:45 AM

lol i have a 955be at 3.8 paired with a 6950 2gb..... i play just fine online 1080p so going above 4.0 on the much superior i7 seems useless to me. to bad im getting an e28 with my tax returns otherwise i would buy an i5 2500k and good enough motherboard.
m
0
l
January 25, 2012 1:32:29 AM

Well, it depends what you consider just fine in the FPS department.
The lowest I find playable is 30 fps, but i much prefer 60 with no dips.

7ccccc7, just saw your config and I can understand why you turn off the HT for bf3, to keep the constant 60fps when you game(When I had 1 580, i would usually be in the 55-60fps, w/o ocing the card, so ht off prob helps you stabilize it) It's just that most people assume that people with i7 tend to leave HT on since that's it main future over an i5, besides the 2mb+ cache.
m
0
l
January 25, 2012 1:54:05 AM

I have constatly 70+FPS on ultra details even with HT on. It does make a difference in gameplay but when I have 70+FPS -5 is not a tragedy and I don't want to change it every computer start up. But for other people when you have for example i7 2600 + GTX560 or HD6850 a +5 gain can be a lot.
m
0
l
January 25, 2012 2:44:17 AM

7ccccc7,cbrunnem,Brianmz way to highjack a thread.

Overclocking cpu helps in cpu bottlenecked games or situations where your graphics cards are powerful enough that framerates are being limited by the cpu's ability to process what the gpu's are doing. I.E. heaps of gpu horsepower needs cpu horsepower. In most situations the gains aren't usually that impressive, but still its never going to slow down your games only possibly improve them :)  an overclock of 4.4 is low enough that you wont(likely) hurt your cpu anyways as long as temps are fine, and a hyper 212 evo is more then enough for that overclock.
m
0
l
!