Overclockin/g/

Does Jow Forums overclock their processors? Why or why not?

I basically think of overclocking as a meme that requires you to pay more money for a cooler than is worth given the performance improvements. What do you Jow Forumsuys think? If you have overclocked your processor, how much more performance did you get? Did it require you to get a huge expensive cooler?

I picked up a Ryzen 7 chip and it's already pretty fast for what I do, but I'm toying with the idea of overclocking it if I can find a cheap cooling solution. So far, the $50-60 extra that I'd need to pay makes it seem not worth the while for doing so.

Attached: overklockenwertz.jpg (474x316, 37K)

Let's do the math. I'm using a 6700k. It has a base clock of 4.0 GHz, and I have it overclocked to 4.7 GHz. The 6700 is about $50 cheaper than the K. It has a base clock of 3.4 GHz. The cooler cost me $90.

So the 6700k is about $140 more expensive including the cost of the cooler. If we ignore turbo, my clock speed is 27.7% higher than a 6700. Even if you factor in the 4.0 GHz turbo clock (which really only applies to one core, the rest don't clock as high), that's still about 15% higher clock speeds. Lets average those two numbers out to be conservative, and we still get a 21% clock increase. For an extra $140. Yes, it's worth it.

I have a x58 board with a xeon x5660 from around 2010-2011 thats overclocked from 2.8ghz to 4.2ghz (will do 4.6ghz but with alot more heat output).
It still performs good enough to run every game I've tried well over 60fps.

So I guess if you buy the right parts, overclocking can give you alot better performance and longevity.

I run watercooling, everything bought second hand over the years for very cheap, even if I upgrade my hw now I can still use the same cooling.

But for the most part, you won't get the same overclocking potential with todays hw. You can't even overclock the high grade xeons and such, and the oc-able cpus from both intel and amd runs pretty close to their potential on stock frequency.

Also new watercooling parts are expensive as fuck.

Attached: spcy.jpg (674x532, 109K)

only on my vidya gaymen machine. That's a separate computer, all I do on it is gaymen, all of my other tasks are on a (non-overclocked) desktop. I'd care if an unstable processor fucked up my main machine. But for gaymen, it's at most annoying and inconvenient, it's not like it'll corrupt important data or anything.

Absolutely not. I save up for my shit and want it to last as long as possible.

>implying that a 21% clock increase translates into an overall 21% performance bump

Bust out a video or some charts or sumtin', cause I'm saying sumting wong with your analysis brah.

I would overclock if it would not increase the powerconsumption buy this hughe amount. Like seriously up to 50% is just insane.
I am a efficency guy, if i have a rig that consumes 700W i would consider it uneconomical.
And seeing how the gains/W are not reasonable I leave it be

Btw I spend extra on cooling just to keep the system quiet so the fans never go close to 80%

That's what stress testing is for, going past stable limits should not be acceptable.

The longevity depends mostly on how high the temps are, if you don't go crazy on the voltages and temps are under 70-80c on full load, the overclocking won't kill or degrade the hw.

Also having a quality psu helps.

Personally I've been overclocking all my hw I've had since 2005, and not once have something died or degraded on me.

The relationship isn't completely linear but performance is strongly correlated with clock speed. If you need a chart to know that, maybe you should lurk moar.

Ok, so you're telling me that an FX-8350 at 5.0 GHz is better than your processor? If so I have a juicy deal you might be interested in.