what gains?

paradisiac · 2 Jul 2011 at 10:31

ok, so the i5 2500k and i7 2600k are pretty good chips and will easily do 4GHz. so, what would benefit from say 4.2GHz, 4.4GHz, 4.6GHz and 4.8GHz? would it only be worth pushing the chip for say video/photo rendering type work, or is there other benefits from the extra 200-800MHz?

Jordan97 · 2 Jul 2011 at 10:33

Pure and brute speed.

paradisiac · 2 Jul 2011 at 10:34

Jordan97 said:
Pure and brute speed.

in what though? would games run faster, do programs load any quicker......
i guess what im really asking is, for the average user that doesnt do a lot of benching, would you notice the difference by going higher than the 4GHz and increasing the volts/temps?

Jordan97 · 2 Jul 2011 at 12:44

Well everything would be more responsive. Programs would load faster, you could get more done in a specific time space, you might get a higher FPS in games, and generally the entire system performance would be increased.

Captain Chaos · 2 Jul 2011 at 20:09

and most importantly

You can brag about it to your mates lol

paradisiac · 2 Jul 2011 at 20:13

colthillary said:
and most importantly

You can brag about it to your mates lol

i would rather have a moderatly oc'd chip that wasnt at risk of dying that squeezing an extra 200mhz out of it for the sake of bragging alone. IF hower i was going to actually see the 200mhz difference, then it might be worth the time trying to get it.

Justintime · 2 Jul 2011 at 20:24

You won't really notice the difference 200MHz brings to the table.

Phenomenologica · 2 Jul 2011 at 20:28

Program loading is almost always limited by the hard drive as far as I know. Personally I don't see my CPU temperatures spike up to 70 degrees when I open the internet.

If you have to ask you probably won't see much difference, but it's worth going for 4.4-4.5 anyway. It's really easy.

paradisiac · 2 Jul 2011 at 20:30

Justintime said:
You won't really notice the difference 200MHz brings to the table.

at the moment temps have limited me to 4.4GHz, which so far is 2hours prime stable @ 1.250v, hopefully it wont BSOD in the next hour or so, then i will do some benchtesting to see if they BSOD it. will do a full prime 8 hour stretch in a couple of days if all of those dont throw up faults.
i tried to get 4.5GHz but the extra 2-4c wasnt worth the hassel.
would pushing for 4.6GHz (cant get it to post @ 4.8GHz trying up to 1.35v) when i get my new cooler be worth it or is 4.4GHz with low vcore (i assume this is fairly low @ 1.250v) going to be more than enough?

AgedIdiot · 2 Jul 2011 at 20:31

paradisiac said:
i would rather have a moderatly oc'd chip that wasnt at risk of dying that squeezing an extra 200mhz out of it for the sake of bragging alone. IF hower i was going to actually see the 200mhz difference, then it might be worth the time trying to get it.

Agreed - I'm currently running my i2500k @ 4.2 left v. to auto and it runs 1.04v to (Max I've seen) 1.28v - nice and cool.
Certainly noticed the difference between 3.3 and 4 which was the speed I moved to originally - not so much (if anything) when moving from 4 to 4.2

Would be interesting to see a review comparing 3.3/4/4.2/4.4/4.6 to get an idea as to the actual improvement so if anyone could link would be much appreciated.

Justintime · 2 Jul 2011 at 20:33

paradisiac said:
at the moment temps have limited me to 4.4GHz, which so far is 2hours prime stable @ 1.250v, hopefully it wont BSOD in the next hour or so, then i will do some benchtesting to see if they BSOD it. will do a full prime 8 hour stretch in a couple of days if all of those dont throw up faults.
i tried to get 4.5GHz but the extra 2-4c wasnt worth the hassel.
would pushing for 4.6GHz (cant get it to post @ 4.8GHz trying up to 1.35v) when i get my new cooler be worth it or is 4.4GHz with low vcore (i assume this is fairly low @ 1.250v) going to be more than enough?

Is it the Arctic cooling 7 in your sig? Definetly needs replacing lol. What load temps are you getting?

paradisiac · 2 Jul 2011 at 20:35

Justintime said:
Is it the Arctic cooling 7 in your sig? Definetly needs replacing lol. What load temps are you getting?

i have a C2D tower for sale, when that goes a silver arrow is going in, but for now, yes its that cooler

load temps at the moment on 4.4GHz @ 1.250v is averaging 72-74c but has hit 83c for a few seconds. this is why im not even going to attempt to go any higher than 4.4GHz.

Justintime · 2 Jul 2011 at 20:37

Yes, its not even really hot at the moment either. Nice heatwave might see you hit 90c lol.

munz · 2 Jul 2011 at 20:38

yeah notvied big difference going up to 4.4ghz @1.3v, but didnt wanna push past 1.35v vcore to get any higher tbh,
if i had better mobo im sure it would get to 4.5ghz/4.6ghz at 1.3v. Temps max out at 61C under prime 95.
Never seen over 50-55C while gaming tbh.

I've done the overclocking,i can leave italone now, getting 4.4ghz out of the cpu,
im well chuffed and temps are fine.

hyper 212 plus is pretty sweet for budget cooler. ive got haf 912 case aswell still just running 1 200mm at front and 1 120mm at back,

munz · 2 Jul 2011 at 20:40

damn those temps seem really high are you sure vcore is correct?? 1.25v and 72-74c?

No case fans? reall really really messy cables?

arctic 7 might not be top of the line but .. its not that bad ?

Justintime · 2 Jul 2011 at 20:54

I still load in the high 60s with IBT and my 2600k @ 4.5Ghz 1.28v. Noctua NHD-14 and Antec 900 case with fans set to low. At 4.8Ghz 1.385v (lowest vcore finally found!) i top out at 78C in 30C ambients.
I know his is a 2500k with no HT but still i doubt the AC7 can do any better than that.

paradisiac · 2 Jul 2011 at 20:54

munz said:
damn those temps seem really high are you sure vcore is correct?? 1.25v and 72-74c?

No case fans? reall really really messy cables?

arctic 7 might not be top of the line but .. its not that bad ?

case is not messy no, and the vcore is correct, the cooler is just that poor (bare in mind it costs less than £20)

it doesnt get over 62c whilst gaming, the cooler is just really slow at dispersing the heat.

Justintime · 2 Jul 2011 at 20:58

Erm.. dude. Evo Labs psu.. NOT good. You need to get a decent psu, god they sell for like 11 quid for a 480w version lol. I've found yours online for about 35 quid.. no way thats going to be clean or give its rated watts ever.

paradisiac · 2 Jul 2011 at 21:01

Justintime said:
Erm.. dude. Evo Labs psu.. NOT good. You need to get a decent psu, god they sell for like 11 quid for a 480w version lol.

yeh i know, but its a modular one and its 80+ certified. i will upgrade at some point, but its nowhere near being under load, even with the 2 gfx cards. when running prime or 3dmark it doesnt use more that 500w and its a 700w+ psu.

Justintime · 2 Jul 2011 at 21:03

Its not a 700w psu mate, likely a rebranded something or the other that might give 400w on a good day. You've got some good hardware in there, why risk it going up in smoke? 80+ Certification is not exactly saying anything and unless you check it could be faked. Trust me on this.
This could also lead to poor overclocking as the voltage regulation might be poor and with your psu potentially being on the edge the ripple could be killing your hardware slowly.