• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

If I didn't overclock my CPU...

AshD93

AshD93

AshD93

Associate
Joined
21 Oct 2009
Posts
1,613
.. Would I see a noticeable downgrade in performance in gaming?

I'm planning to build a PC but part of the idea was run stock cooling until I can save a extra bit of money for WC'ing parts.

So say if I have a i7 3770k with a stock fan and say a GTX 670, would you expect the performance to be massively different between stock and overclocked settings?

Thanks in advance

Ash
 
I doubt it would be a massive difference but i think you would notice it when you do get round to turning it up.

Have a look at the futuremark benches you can search by cpu ad gpu then have a look at the difference between those clocked and not. Stock cooler will get you to 4.1Ghz btw.
 
Gav_881 said:
I doubt it would be a massive difference but i think you would notice it when you do get round to turning it up.

Have a look at the futuremark benches you can search by cpu ad gpu then have a look at the difference between those clocked and not. Stock cooler will get you to 4.1Ghz btw.
Click to expand...

If it gets me to 4.1Ghz with stock, I'm not too fussed. Seems like a good starting overclock.

Cheers matey!
 
there can be an improvement in some things if you overclock.
just get a budget aire cooler for now, like the Gelid Tranquilo for £25
or a top end air cooler like a K2, NH-D14, Phantecs etc..... for around £70 ish
these are as good/better then the closed water cooling kits,
personally i wouldn't go for a full custom water cooling loop as they are expensive and only worth it if you are going for a heavy overclock.
 
Last edited:
j.col said:
there can be an improvement in some things if you overclock.
just get a budget aire cooler for now, like the Gelid Tranquilo for £25
or a top end air cooler like a K2, NH-D14, Phantecs etc..... for around £70 ish
these are as good/better then the closed water cooling kits,
personally i wouldn't go for a full custom water cooling loop as they are expensive and only worth it if you are going for a heavy overclock.
Click to expand...

Well I was going to go for a H100 and call it a day.

But this PC is suppose to last me a good 5 years if possible (with some small upgrades and so on) so a heavy overclock will happen eventually (assuming I win the silicon lottery).

Also, I did want it to stand out in my bedroom. I guess it's still a debate in my head but watercooling is edging it.

Finally, due to ... "future career choices", watercooling would be a nice addition to my plans :D
 
arknor said:
heres cpu scaling for a GTX680

CPU Scaling - Results: BattleField 3, BattleField: Bad Company 2, Crysis 2, Aliens vs Predator 3
http://www.benchzone.com/page.php?al=geforce_gtx_680_review&pg=21
Click to expand...

He's put in a lot of effort to prove absolutely nothing, he should have posted the CPU utilisation

http://www.techspot.com/review/458-battlefield-3-performance/page7.html

As you can see from that 34% on the 2600K is virtually idle, not bottlenecked in the slightest so overclocking is not going to yield impressive gains as proved by his graphs

EDIT Overclock your GPU instead ;)
 
I think overclocking the cpu is over rated. Yes it will increase the max fps which looks great on a review site. In most cases it will do little for the minimum fps which is far more important when your gaming. If you think your cpu is a bottleneck in a game then turn up the in game settings to put the load back on the gpu. As a gamer all your interested in is can the game run at 60fps or more.
 
arknor said:
heres cpu scaling for a GTX680

CPU Scaling - Results: BattleField 3, BattleField: Bad Company 2, Crysis 2, Aliens vs Predator 3
http://www.benchzone.com/page.php?al=geforce_gtx_680_review&pg=21

CPU Scaling - Results: DiRT 3, Just Cause 2, Dawn of War II, FarCry 2, Crysis)

http://www.benchzone.com/page.php?al=geforce_gtx_680_review&pg=22

apart from dawn of war 2 the difference between
an i7 2600k
@ 3.4ghz
@4.0ghz
@4.3ghz
@4.7ghz
is only a few fps
Click to expand...

Makes sense in theory.

However... before I put my 670 in my new rig with a 3570k, I put it in my old rig with an oc'd [email protected]. Now im guessing that BF3 was not maxing out my cpu, however, pairing the 670 with the 3570k, BF3 feels so much more fluid and smooth.

I dont necessarily think that a cpu needs to be reaching 100% utilisation to be a bottle neck. I dont think it works like that at all.
 
Kaapstad said:
I think overclocking the cpu is over rated. Yes it will increase the max fps which looks great on a review site. In most cases it will do little for the minimum fps which is far more important when your gaming. If you think your cpu is a bottleneck in a game then turn up the in game settings to put the load back on the gpu. As a gamer all your interested in is can the game run at 60fps or more.
Click to expand...

I'll be doing MATLAB processing/signal processing and video editting so I will eventually overclock it. But for now, it's fine.
 
opethdisciple said:
Makes sense in theory.

However... before I put my 670 in my new rig with a 3570k, I put it in my old rig with an oc'd [email protected]. Now im guessing that BF3 was not maxing out my cpu, however, pairing the 670 with the 3570k, BF3 feels so much more fluid and smooth.

I dont necessarily think that a cpu needs to be reaching 100% utilisation to be a bottle neck. I dont think it works like that at all.
Click to expand...
Actually those BF3 results looks to be GPU bounded with just one GTX680, which is why overclocking the CPU don't really affect the frame rate much. But one should also take in the consideration of that result is only based on the 32 player conquest...and I think we all know by now it is the 64 players maps that really stretch the muscle of the CPUs ;)
 
opethdisciple said:
Makes sense in theory.

However... before I put my 670 in my new rig with a 3570k, I put it in my old rig with an oc'd [email protected]. Now im guessing that BF3 was not maxing out my cpu, however, pairing the 670 with the 3570k, BF3 feels so much more fluid and smooth.

I dont necessarily think that a cpu needs to be reaching 100% utilisation to be a bottle neck. I dont think it works like that at all.
Click to expand...

The reason is probably the high RAM latency and low bandwidth of all Core 2 chips as a result of the off die memory controller. Windows likes to use system RAM for graphics. Compared to contemporary AMD chipsets a c2q has half of the memory bandwidth, to modern intel chips, somewhere between 1/3 and 1/4.
 
My system stays at stock all the time unless im in the mood for FSX and only then I stick the overclock profile on to 4.8Ghz, all other games I play I find little use for the system to be overclocked, for what maybe 1-5 frames more that are not here or there in most cases.

Don't worry about running a GTX 670 and the IVY you picked at stock, even when you overclock in real world use you won't in most cases see the difference and only in benchmarks it may show benefits. I always think as the overclock profile as that little boost for stuff that benefits when it's overclocked otherwise I don't bother honestly. Only FSX for me sees a worthwhile gain but that again is an old coded simulator that loves overclocks on the CPU, on the graphics overclocked it makes zero difference to FSX.

So if you feel you want to run the system at stock and don't spend half your life running benchmarks then go for it, enjoy your new system it looks nice. You can always in the future add a better CPU cooler and overclock it or as I have done the reason for me to have a better CPU cooler is because they run quieter and keep the system in general cooler.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom