A Question I Was Asked. Please Help.

Status
Not open for further replies.

augest

In Runtime
Messages
401
This was a question asked to me, An a reply someone said to him. Read both then I'd like to hear your comment's / opinion's, And your answer you'd reply with to that question.

Thank's.

Question
Can I ask - what's the point of overclocking a processor that the OS isn't even capable of fully utilizing? I used to OC my hardware, even used water cooling with a "bong" water tower and 120mm fan... I just don't understand the benefit with current software technology.

Reply He Got


From my experiance for building water cooling systems for my customers peoples main fucus is over clocking the "GPU" and Memory freequency using overclocking utilites. will not see much diffrence with the CPU because O.S. applications will not utilize the bandwith of a CPU (beside autocade) < - hope i spelt it right. also what i notice is that the population for water cooling has gone down and i think is because of speed of todays new hardware.
 
Actually, the OS and any programs running automatically make use of the extra speed. "...isn't even capable of fully utilizing?" Where's they get this crap?

The same Windows runs on my old AMD 2000+ as on my 3200+ (which is overclocked, by the way). If I had a C2D, it would run the same Windows. In other words, the speed of the CPU has an automatic effect on the OS, in that the OS runs at the same friggin' speed of the CPU.

Water-cooling allows one to OC further due to the better cooling afforded by the water loop.

It is true, however, that most games are more graphic intensive than CPU intensive, so OC the GFX cards would do even better. Water-cooling the GFX helps with this, as well.

Basically, both the one asking and one answering were wrong, and full of BS.
 
I think overclocking in general is fairly useless, but I still do it.

A 2.0 ghz Athlon 64 processor will run all the newest stuff just fine, practically the same as a 2.6 ghz Athlon 64 processor. The idea is getting more performance out of your stuff, just because you can.
 
^^agree^^
i just do it to do it. the only time i notice a difference really is when i run superpi, lol.
but, i am guessing that if you have an e6300 and go from it's stock of 1.86ghz to super-smokin 3.2ghz...i would think you would notice some pretty significant performance increases.
 
i think that it is only useful when going to the extremes. Taking a 2.66 ghz cpu up to like 3.3, ehhh no difference. Going from 2.66 up to like 4.2, that is a huge leap.

Overclocking and its terms of usability have to factor in everything on the machine. If you overclock a huge amount, but have a small bus or slow memory, its useless.

My bottom line, if you are going to overclock...... Do it to the extremes and make sure that you are pretty much overclocking everything in your machine. cpu, bus, memory, pcie bus, graphics cards
 
holy **** jseber.....nice rig....how are those 8800gtxs running???


and yea....i only overclock to do it....my old athlon i OCed from the stock 2.4 ghz to 2.6 ghz.....never noticed a change except on bencmarks.....my new opteron 165 is OCed from its stock 1.8 ghz to 2.8 ghz...and soon to be 3.0ghz....i definately notice a difference....
 
i agree with jseber. if you're gonna do it, do it to the limit.
the only thing, with my amd...as it has hypertransport and not a fsb (they kinda sorta are the same thing but different, lol)...it doesn't benefit me at all to overclock the ht. actually, it usually tends to hinder efforts to overclock the amd's. i set it very low when pushing my overclock, to ensure that i don't have any stability issues stemming from it.
just wanted to make that distinction for you amd users out there.
 
It's just plain fun to boot into windows a see a higher clock speed than it came with stock. Especially after the work it takes sometimes to get there. That's why there's teams to OC to the limits, people just like to push things and find out how far they can take the PC they just built.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom