Anyone still overclocking a 5+ year old CPU without issue?

Used daily

Clock has been anywhere from 3.8/4Ghz. 4.2Ghz for a very brief moment when I first bought it but didn't feel comfortable running the voltage for it 24/7.

 

2500k became less stable. I still can run it stable up to 4.1GHz, after that it's not stable anymore.

Remarkable CPU nonetheless.

 

I would say you have pretty lousy sample man.

 

As far as it works and performs, I am fine. Don't fry your tight sample

Bought enough time for me to switch to affordable 6-8 cores. I just hope it will last long enough to make a great jump to 8 cores Ryzen v2 (or maybe Intel, if it brings something like amazing on the table, like it did with Sandy Bridge).

 

Seeing a 2.6GHz i5 750 OCed to 4GHz is pretty awesome!

 

A lot will do 3.8-4.0 no problem.
Mine would do 4.2ghz at 1.4ish volts.

Pretty good CPU for the time.

 

Thanks, man.

Yeah, it pretty much is the norm for them. I remember at the time, faulty boards were going around, specifically with foxconn sockets. I was paranoid, nonetheless but turns out I was lucky. (Knocks on wood)

Typically, I'll use every ounce of it till I have no choice but I am getting that itch for an upgrade. Going back and forth between new CPU/MB/RAM or just slapping an x3470/80 in this and see how it does. 70s are on the cheap, unlike the 80s, which is quite counterproductive.

 

I've been running 4.5-4.6 the whole time on my 3770k since March of '13. I haven't had to go higher than about 1.3v on this chip.

I've had a few sporadic BSODs since win10 has been installed and after updates, but generally its fine under load.

 

My 2500k is still running fine @4.3Ghz (1.29v), been at that clock speed for years. Passed it on to younger brother - plenty fast for what he plays but I'd guess I could sqeeze a bit more out of it if I up the voltage.

 

2600k@4.7ghz 24/7 since official release, still going strong under water. Last 200mhz from 4.5ghz to 4.7ghz was expensive in terms of voltage - 1.3ish to 1.44 - but still LinX stable for hours with 2x8gb 2133mhz DDR3.

The 2133mhz DDR3 really gave this old thing a new lease on life and lifted it far up the AIDA CPU ranking and FPS got a serious heafty bump aswell....

Never a hickup, 100% stable at all times and always on, for work, for 4K media/video and for daily normal usage.. This stability and speed has cured all upgrade itching for years, even though Ryzen was hard to pass up, will revisit Ryzen later this fall, hopefully with better overclockers/steppings..

 

Currently stuck at 4.1ghz @ 1.33v.

RAM seems to be the limiting factor sometimes a lot more than cpu multiplier.

Original was 2.67ghz @ 1.22v so i'm happy with that. Got the D0 chip so its a slightly more voltage hungry chip.

 

43%+ overclock on Sandy for last 5 years.

Im starting to think this chip will never die.

 

Does anyone know where there's reviews of an i7 9 series on x58 vs current top of the line set up's running in 4k? All I can find on the net is with 4k the gpu does the work load. I'm using an i7 970 @ 3.8 HT with 2 1070s in 4k. I'm curious if there's any substantial difference if I was to upgrade CPU/mobo to current gen. I know there's more fps in 1080P and 1440p. Not sure about 4k though.

 

You can easily tell yourself. If your GPU isn't maxed (99% load), that usually means you have a CPU or memory speed bottleneck. So upgrading the GPU would not help much, but upgrading the CPU would help a lot.

Conversely, if your GPU is maxed at 99%, then a GPU upgrade would help while a CPU upgrade would not.

You can use Afterburner and enable its OSD to see the load on GPU and CPU in-game. What usually happens is that at 1080p, the CPU is the bottleneck. The GPU is not reaching max load. But once you bump the resolution to 1440p, it's usually the GPU that maxes out. And at 4K, in virtually all cases it's the GPU that is constantly maxed out (unless you're playing an old game where you get like 200FPS at 4K.)

So whether a GPU or CPU platform upgrade would be best for you depends on the games you play. Personally, I decided to stay on my 2500K and go to a 1440p G-Sync monitor instead. As a result, I'm GPU-limited in about 90% of all cases on my 980 Ti. It was a better use of my money in my opinion. But different people have different priorities, of course. If image quality is less important to you than frame rate, then 1080p with higher FPS would need a CPU upgrade. I'm perfectly fine with 90FPS @ 1440p. Some people are only fine with 144FPS even if it means sticking to 1080p. Pick and choose (and test.)

 

I would guess that you'd run into a bandwidth limit, PCIe-wise.
Apart from that, those CPUs were quite a bit slower and hotter, if I remember correctly, than 2500/2600k SB.
But just like the others said already, check your applications and choose according to that.

 

Good advise! I will take a look at that. I watched a gamer nexus video on revisiting the i7 930 @ 4.0. Ultimately it was running on par with i7 2600k stock. But that's the best comparison I could find. Another good point is my 2.0 pcie slots. If the bandwidth plays a roll. I can't find any 1070 sli with x58 reviews though. Now that I think about it, I get 7425 in firestrike ultra and both my cards are maxed in precision. However, when I compare my score to HH 1070 sli score, he's getting ~8200 if memory serves. But his test bench is way better than my setup.

 

On par at 4.0, and then you'll need to keep in mind that the SB usually ran at 25-30% higher clock rates than stock easily.
Then, another step up when you look at modern CPUs.
But I really think that, especially with SLI, PCIe bandwidth would make the biggest difference for you.

 

Oh for sure, SB can clock much higher. That was just used as a representation that I could find to compare my system to. I hear you with the sli bandwidth. I wish I could find something on the net though.

 

I'm just saying, as that should give you an impression of how much performance from the CPU you might gain.
They do have PCIe benchmarks now and then.

 

lol... Personally my i5 4690 I even have disabled Turbo 2.0. I heard from Intel person CPUs without the Turbos work less complicated and of course bigger life span and all. And at the end of the day, my 4690 with Turbo does only +400Mhz.