Dollar for dollar, is it better to overclock or buy faster stock components?

[mblaine]

I've overclocked before: it's fun, it's easy, and it's a great way to get more out of components. That being said, it costs more money to buy an overclockable CPU vs. a stock one, plus a motherboard and cooler to go with it. I understand this also opens you up to overclocking RAM and GPU, so let's include that in the discussion (keeping in mind it costs more money for overclockable versions of the same).

Here's the question: Can anyone here link articles or data that show overclocking is a better value than purchasing stock components? For example, taking the recent SBM $650 gaming build, which Paul overclocked -- what if I had simply spent my overclocking "budget" (perhaps $100-$150 for overclockable components) on stock components? Does Tom's have any articles on this? Or any head-to-head SBM competitions between standard and overclocked components?

I know all the right answers from an opinion perspective or personal experience -- I've had both great results and bad results overclocking -- but I'm looking for some actual data.

 

[schmuckley]

It depends on what the "stock components" are,what IPC ,what IPS..etc..

 

[amuffin]

Depends...

 

[Calculatron]

I think to be able to really be able to hit this nail on the head, we'd need the data for how long an overclocking system might operate when compared to a stock system, and see if that is significant when compared to the time when you might upgrade your rig. That would be the true measure of the aggregate cost.

It probably shouldn't be too hard to take the numbers from the SBM, and then adjust and extrapolate.

Either way, given the dynamic market, I am not sure if any results would be definitive. Still, this is a very intriguing topic.

 

[mblaine]

For example, I'm building a budget system for moderate OC based on the FX-6300. I'm not a pro overclocker but let's assume that graphics/RAM/case/optical/HDD are the same for both builds. And let's assume we're using the same CPU, otherwise it's not really a fair comparison -- so both use an FX-6300.

Non-OC Build - $149 for core components
I could get a ASUS M5A78L-M LX Plus free with a $109 FX-6300 at Microcenter, stock cooler with the box CPU, and perhaps a 450W-500W CPU ($40). Total price $149 for CPU/Cooler/motherboard/PSU.

OC Build - $309 for core components
Or I could OC it. CPU is still $109. I'll need a $30 cooler (Hyper 212), overclocking motherboard (GA-970A-UD3 or ASUS M5A97 2.0, $99), and a beefy power supply (SeaSonic 650W $70).

Overclocking used to be a cheap way to get more out of your processor. Am I really getting $160 of value by taking my FX-6300, 8GB of 1866MHz RAM, and video card (e.g. 7950 3GB) a little farther?

The answer seems to be no: overclocking is not worth the money. The similar $650 Q3 SBM used an FX-6300 which, when overclocked, only offered a performance increase of 12% over stock settings (1920x1080 results):
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/build-a-pc-fx-6300-overclocking,3617-17.html

 

[Calculatron]

Well, you've taken a single case and applied to it all; this is a hasty generalization. Especially since this single case has some special unique features about it: the motherboard comes free. If Micro Center always offered this motherboard for free, this would be a valid point towards being a definitive conclusion, but instead all we can say is, in this instance, with these parameters, overclocking is not worth it.

I'd also like to point out that the overclock achieved in the linked SBM was achieved with the stock cooler, I do believe. We're on the right track, though.

I have to head to work, but would like to investigate this issue further, later.

 

[Calculatron]

Okay, so when it comes to computers (or just anything in any market) we know that there is diminishing returns when it comes to the price and performance. We see this with the monthly "best component" round-ups, as well as the system builder marathons. So, it's tricky to do a comparison with a rig that can be overclocked when compared to one that can't (rather, shouldn't) be overclocked - because, really, we're just doing a comparison of the quality of the components, and the ability to be overclocked is one of the by-products, not the sole benefit. More expensive components generally come with more goodies, particularly in the I/O department.

If we were to take the exact same components, and then overclock them, of course overclocking would be worth it. Same cost, more performance. The big question is, does the extra performance have the same longevity?

Perhaps we should try taking a base template, and for what could be considered the overclocking rig we include the cost of an aftermarket cooler and perhaps a bigger power supply. Additionally, for comparison, we could upgrade the base template to include faster versions of the same components (CPU, RAM) and see if the extra cost of factory-overclocked items is worth it. This three-way comparison would help have some insight, overall.