i7 Keep up With 285?

You mean the 950 or EE? If so, then no. The 920 or Xeon variant overclock very well.

As for leaving the CPU overclocked, you can enable a power saving feature that allows it to lower the multiplier and conserve power and heat. Though I never use it since I'm always utilizing my computer.

Some users also lower their overclock during different times of the year (Summer mainly) due to the heat output of these chips.

 

Once you find a good overclock I think most people would agree that you may as well leave it there. I run F@H on mine 24/7 when I am not gaming so I always want it as fast as possible.

 

i would go with this review a guru member made, it looks very good.

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=300289


and from that article oc'ing over 4ghz is pointless since you dont see a benefit at all, 3.8ghz is the sweet spot for sli or 3sli, usually 3.2ghz.

 

what do you guys use to test the stability of your system after overclocking? For win xp 32 bit.

 

Furmark, ATI Tools, 3D Mark Vantage (on vista), Crysis, other games, etc...

Regardless of what you use you can still run into a game that is more sensitive to overclocks than others - so even if you find a clock rate that is stable in one program it may not be stable in another. So just experiement.

 

Intel Burn Test, no question. It will show any instability far, far faster than any other test.

http://downloads.guru3d.com/IntelBurnTest-v2.2-download-2047.html

 

Well, not many games at the moment need or recommend anything higher then 2.6Ghz and those that do, recommend a Dual-Core.

I am getting the same CPU as you and i honestly am not going to overclock it, from experience, i don't gain a single thing, while risking the loss of the CPU.

 

you always see a gain from overclocking not only in your pc running a bit faster (ok this isnt major but there is a difference) and depending on your setup and the game the increase can be as much as 20fps..

higher end gpus need more cpu muscle thats a pretty well-known fact. also there isnt a risk involved in overclocking and if there is you having spent enough time researching it or getting the right equipment (eg fans..correctly seated heatsink..paste etc).

sry but i dont like this dont overclock attitute. it does take effort and expense but bottom line is it is worth it.

 

oops (bumping up my post count..nah was accident).

but i will say this if overclocking isnt your thing or you cant be bothered dont buy a gpu and a chip that will be bottlenecked.

stick to a faster stock speed like a phenom (3.2ghz) and a 260/275 that wont be bottlenecked at all.

if u start to buy cards like a 285/295 and run cpus @stock you will lose performance/fps.

 

Thanks looks good but it doesn't seem to work ; 'the application failed to initialize properly...' I read the details and it is supposed to work on win xp 32.

 

I overclocked mine to 3.9GHz. I'm using a liquid cooling loop as well because I wanted it to be as cool as possible while overclocked. Sure I could have gone a lot higher than 3.9GHz, but I feel as though that's plenty plus I wanted to stay under 1.4volts on the vcore. Now I don't feel like I have to worry about my CPU dieing as quickly, even OCed. As for performance increase, my windows is faster in general. Just doing multiple random things has definitely improved since I overclocked. Games didn't necessarily gain a noticeable FPS gain, but I did notice that textures and things load a lot faster, and stuff doesn't pop up as much. I'm wondering though... If i am running this OC with a single GTX 285, would it benefit to get a 2nd GTX 285 and OC this CPU more? Would that be the best way to get a super boost in performance? I play most games with AF and AA maxed out except crysis, which I use none. I see dips in FPS when using AF and AA though (forced through Nvidia control panel).

 

Ever heard the term "diminishing returns?" There is a point at which an overclock no longer improves perceived performance. With my DDR3-1333 and Q9550 on my current mobo, that's at about 3.4ghz... Yes, pushing your CPU further may yield better performance still, but be ware that eventually you will get to the point where other components start to break down. Overclocking, if done properly can be used to find the "weakest link" in a system....like a motherboard or memory that's not quite up to par....like my current board and my ddr2-800.

Not sure where you got the idea that there's no risk involved in overclocking. Most, even in these forums, understand that overclocked systems are more likely to fail than a system run at stock clocks. They crash more frequently, they're more prone to component failure....additional heat generation is never good for a computer component. Also, some people completely ignore the intended voltage range of their processor during an OC which has been proven to shorten component life. I'm not an expert on overclocking as I've only been doing it for 10 years or so....but I'm pretty sure the principles behind it haven't changed...nor have the possible end results.

 

There's so many things incorrect with this statement it makes my head spin.

First off, there isn't "always" a gain from overclocking. Second off, he won't see a 20fps gain, even in GTA4, unless he OCs his CPU to twice it's effective clock speed. Third off, it's been proven that even a decently clocked dual core CPU won't bottleneck a single GPU setup. Fourth off, there is a always risk in overclocking if not done properly.

I understand you're trying to help the guy out, but don't give the implication that he can muscle up his computer by any significant amount with simply overclocking his components. There's a lot more to it than just higher clock speeds, which is why you can only OC so high before the gain in performance begins to decrease per clock.

 

Try this.

I, myself, use LinX. Basically the same thing but a better interface and layout.

 

@ lavans and sykozis. you are both twisting my words here slighty. i said it can be as much as 20fps. i didnt bring any specific games into this so i dont know why you are.

dont think me naive that there isnt any risk in anything pc related. i think the op has to be somewhat silly to think oh yeah i will build a pc and i can just slap it all together and overclock hey presto. that wasnt my point. if done right there isnt any risk involved in overclocking. you as experienced gurus should know this.

degrades hardware life? whats this myth? i think you find many gurus run there oc 24/7 and dont have any issues and most of the time parts last just as long..well this certainly hasnt been proven either way.

bottom line is i will continue to overclock because i know from personal experience it benefits my pc and my games. everyone can do what they want..personal choice. so lets agree to disagree here.

but overclocking shouldnt be given a negative bias which i believe (lavans) you were doing..

 

I would love to see any game get a 20 FPS boost by simply overclocking an already OC'd 3GHz CPU.

And yet, there are experienced Gurus here that have ended up frying their CPU, GPU, and RAM.

If the parts aren't kept in check, the excess heat can take it's toll on components. Theres been way too many people that have ended up frying their components over a short period of time because they got careless.

I will continue to OC as well, but only when there's a need for it. My needs are audio and video encoding/decoding. I can tell you that from first hand experience, going from 2.66GHz & DDR3 @ 1333MHz 9-9-9-24 OC'd up to 3.4GHz & DDR3 @1417 5-5-5-14 has provided a nominal boost in performance with games, even on a dual GPU setup. So saying that one will see a big increase on an already decently clocked CPU with a single GPU in the system is just pure rubbish.

It's not given a negative bias. We're just pointing out that overclocking isn't as pepped up as you make it seem to be.

 

This looks like its turned into a overclocking v stock speed battle, and got off topic from the original question.

Surely the best thing to do Keith Wing, would be to benchmark all the games you play at stock speed, then again overclocked, and see if there is any difference, my mate gets pretty decent overclocks with the stock cooler on his I7, so would be a place to start.

As for overclocking not shortening the lifespan, of course it does, any piece electrical equipment that runs hotter will fail quicker.
Even applies to people, if i took speed 24/7 i would get alot more done, but i'd die a good bit earlier lol.

The reason this don't happen to "guru's" is because how long do they actually keep a piece of hardware before moving onto something new?

 

To thread starter

for single card you wont see a difference when oc'ed higher than 3.4ghz...lets say you're aiming for 3.8 -4.0ghz, those extra 400mhz will cause only more heat and allot more v core to use...1.4v is a bit overkill imo for cpu lifespan (0.800V-1.375V is i7920 range).

 

well from going from a q9450 @3.6ghz to a corei7 @stock to then 3.8ghz change up was 40fps difference in left for dead..

i did the pics in another thread. maybe not all results are like this but even if u get 25% of this i am happy..

re part life i built my spec 3 months ago more or less...we'll see how long it lasts (dont plan on changing for 2 yrs).

 

Actually you can use vcore up to 1.55 with the i7's and still be within Intel specs. 1.4v won't damage an i7 in any way as long as it has sufficient cooling.

http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//...task=view&id=44&Itemid=1&limit=1&limitstart=3