First overclock - disappointed by results

[Luckystrike123]

I have recently upgraded my graphics card from a 570GTX to a R9 390, and whilst I have been very pleased with the new card I have read that my old i5 2500k at stock (3.3 ghz) would bottleneck the GPU.

So I have overclocked the CPU to 4.2 ghz (prime 95 stable for 1 hour, max temp 70C but typical 65C, 1.328 volts, 42 multiplier) but I have only seen a 0.5 fps improvement in Heaven benchmark.

My question is, is the marginal performance increase seen in Heaven typically of "general gaming", and if so, is it actually worth keeping the overclock rather than running the system cooler at stock speeds?

 

[savagesam117]

This is mainly because the Heaven benchmark is a GPU intensive benchmark, it will not be using the CPU. Use firestrike and wait for the physics test then you should see an improvement in that score. Also overall gaming FPS should increase on games that like the CPU

 

[Luckystrike123]

Using 3dmark I've achieved the following improvements when comparing 3.3 ghz to 4.2 ghz;

Cloud Gate +20%
Skydiver +11%
Firestrike +6%
Ice Storm +28%

Looks like the overclock will be staying

 

[Mariusz]

Nice results. Overclocking your cpu is worthwhile, helps to take any bottleneck off your cpu and place all the load on your graphics card.

 

[MrMD]

Using 3dmark I've achieved the following improvements when comparing 3.3 ghz to 4.2 ghz;

Cloud Gate +20%
Skydiver +11%
Firestrike +6%
Ice Storm +28%

Looks like the overclock will be staying

Different tests strain different parts of your system.

If you run Firestrike,the physics part of the test is CPU dependent,and is a good way to measure perf increase as clocks increase,compare the just the physics score you get between stock and an OC if your lookin to see the affects of an OC