Ivy fail

the1gooner · 24 Apr 2012 at 19:30

Colonel_basic said:
I have a i5 750 not overclocked as im using the standard cooler, is it worth going to ivy for gaming?

I used to run an i5 750 at 3.6ghz easily with an arctic freezer pro.

No need to upgrade when all it takes is to spend a little bit on a better cooler.

HangTime · 24 Apr 2012 at 19:31

Ollie1132 said:
If your not prepared to get top air cooling then why even bother overclocking to begin with?

Because overclocking gives good gains even with non-top air cooling - I don't think I've ever spent more than £20 on a HS&Fan and indeed have achieved >50% overclocks on a couple of stock coolers.

Darujhistan · 24 Apr 2012 at 19:32

Krono5 said:
Since when did anyone care about power consumption? Unless you run your desktop off a battery it's meaningless as the £££'s saved over a year period would still be in single digits.

Far too much is made of power consumption. The savings are tiny, same with GPU's too.

hyperst · 24 Apr 2012 at 19:32

dokko said:
It's 50% (max) doing them compare charts, but that is both CPUs at stock.

The 3.0 pcie is still interesting since I intend to get a 660 when it's released.

But 50% CPU increase for £500+, not sure it's my time...yet.

Well if you cannot afford, then you cannot really say it's not a worthy upgrade, it's not exactly a small performance increase for you.

Ethermaster · 24 Apr 2012 at 19:41

I don't see Ivybrigde costing £500 for an i5 even if you are buying a new mobo and ram !

DeeJayCee · 24 Apr 2012 at 19:42

The best OC analysis of IB so far:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5763/undervolting-and-overclocking-on-ivy-bridge

Not quite sure how this release can be classed a "fail".

4.5GHz on stock volts. Max OC may well not be as good as SB but it depends on what you are looking for out of your system.

Choice is a good thing (why else does AMD exist

)

the_director · 24 Apr 2012 at 19:58

That is the best review I read yesterday. Clearly people should aim for 4.5ghz at low volts, which I would be more than happy with.

MrH · 24 Apr 2012 at 20:02

4.5GHz would do me fine, any more would be a bonus.

Admiral Huddy · 24 Apr 2012 at 20:08

Energize said:
Spending hundreds on watercooling for a couple hundred MHz is out of the question for most people. It's terrible value for money.

.. but this is my point unless i'm mistaken. You can't compare a watercooled SB processor running at 5GHz with an IB bridge running at 4.8Ghz on air. They aren't comparable. From what I understand, a Sb 2500k will run at the max 4.5Ghz on air.. where's as the IB will run at 4.8Ghz. and that's before watercooling comes into play... it must be a better clocker surely.

WingZero30 · 24 Apr 2012 at 20:17

So far Ivybridge overclocking scenario reminds me of Q6600 overclocking.

For Q6600 generally, it was relatively very easy to get to 3Ghz from 2.4Ghz on stock voltage. After 3Ghz, required voltage increase until 3.4Ghz by which most of Q6600s have reached their overclocking potential on air. Anything above 3.4Ghz was a bonus and many tried to get to 3.6Ghz but with little success as at this speed, required large increase in voltage, coupled with high temps and stability issue. It also required a lot of tweaking such as change to northbridge voltage, PLL voltage etc to be stable at 3.6Ghz.

[email protected] is what [email protected] is on air!!

jwsg · 24 Apr 2012 at 20:25

It's good to see people realising that true skill is in achieving a balance between volts and clocks and power and temps and not just in taking the easy option and ramping everything to the max.

To trully get the best results you need to invest effort and maybe money in software that supports the Intel features such as convertors that use Quicksync - this will far outweigh CPU clock speed.

Aurhinius · 24 Apr 2012 at 20:26

I think it has less to do with skill and more to do with the silicon lottery we play when buying a CPU.

Energize · 24 Apr 2012 at 20:30

Admiral Huddy said:
.. but this is my point unless i'm mistaken. You can't compare a watercooled SB processor running at 5GHz with an IB bridge running at 4.8Ghz on air. They aren't comparable. From what I understand, a Sb 2500k will run at the max 4.5Ghz on air.. where's as the IB will run at 4.8Ghz. and that's before watercooling comes into play... it must be a better clocker surely.

4.5GHz is standard for the 2500k on air, 4.8GHz is not uncommon and 5GHz is possible.

madteamkiller · 24 Apr 2012 at 21:34

I'm looking for some 3570k max stable overclock vs 2500k max stable overclock comparisons before I decide on anything.

Most reviews I've read, compare the 3770k which is not what I'm looking to buy. Are there any reviews or benchies that make the comparison I have mentioned?

dokko · 24 Apr 2012 at 22:36

hyperst said:
Well if you cannot afford, then you cannot really say it's not a worthy upgrade, it's not exactly a small performance increase for you.

It is when (as someone said) you know a new socket is just around the corner.

Can someone explain to me why they need a new socket every launch? Surely they can future proof, board sockets used to last 2 or 3 gens of chips, now it's one family one socket, move on.

Imagine a new pci slot with every launch of gpu?

hyperst · 24 Apr 2012 at 22:39

dokko said:
It is when (as someone said) you know a new socket is just around the corner.

Can someone explain to me why they need a new socket every launch? Surely they can future proof, board sockets used to last 2 or 3 gens of chips, now it's one family one socket, move on.

Imagine a new pci slot with every launch of gpu?

There's all ways a new socket around the corner, when that new socket launch's there will all ready be talk of a new one and people will say the same as you, it happens all the time.

dokko · 24 Apr 2012 at 22:41

hyperst said:
There's all ways a new socket around the corner, when that new socket launch's there will all ready be talk of a new one and people will say the same as you, it happens all the time.

But why? Why does there need to be a new socket every year?

My 775 has seen. E6600, q6600 and a q9550, and lasted 5 years or something like that, a 2011 will last one chip, that is a problem for me, I can't afford to replace mobos every 5 seconds.

hyperst · 24 Apr 2012 at 22:47

dokko said:
But why? Why does there need to be a new socket every year?

My 775 has seen. E6600, q6600 and a q9550, and lasted 5 years or something like that, a 2011 will last one chip, that is a problem for me, I can't afford to replace mobos every 5 seconds.

But you haven't, so I don't see why you are complaining, not a lot we as consumers can do is there, it's like the price of graphics cards in today's market, they are way over priced yet people buy them.

the_director · 24 Apr 2012 at 22:56

Your last motherboard has lasted 5 years or so, meaning that it isn't neccesary to upgrade every socket.

I see your point, but as CPU designs change and new chipsets / features are added I don't see how one motherboard to accomodate new technology without a major redesign - i.e. making them modular.

Perhaps that is a good idea, you buy a base motherboard with VRMs etc and then upgrade it in modules as and when needed. However, this is probably more expensive and less practical than the current system.

Haswell is still a year away - possibly more - so I do not see the point in waiting, especially when Ivy / Sandy users can happily sit out that socket as even if it is a massive leap forward there is no guarentee that games / software will even be using all of the grunt available currently at that point.

I fully expect to keep my Ivy build for a long time.

dokko · 24 Apr 2012 at 22:57

Complaining, right. Bit defensive aren't you? I cannot see why since I'm merely weighing up my options while taking in to account future upgrades, thought that was general practise round here, didn't used to be seen as complaining, used to be seen as sensible planning/purchasing.