Paying £80 more on an "overclockable" CPU - worth it?

[antobag]

I've read in a number of places that overclocking is more of a hobby than a money-saving enterprise. I was wondering if spending more on an "overclockable" PC would be economical in the long-run (ie. could offset hardware upgrades for a few months or so).

Specifically, I'm looking at the following:

Non-overclockable PC
CPU: Intel i5-4690
Motherboard: ASUS H81M-PLUS
Cooler: Super Quiet Titan Dragonfly Cooler

Overclockable PC
CPU: Intel i5-4690K
Motherboard: ASUS Z97-P
Cooler: Noctua DH-15S Ultra Quiet Cooler

The overclockable PC costs £80 more (overall cost of PC is roughly £1000). The Noctua cooler is actually the biggest cause of the difference in cost (it's £40 more than the Dragonfly) but I feel it would be necessary for sufficient cooling on an overclocked CPU. In terms of pure performance-to-money ratio, would the £80 investment in overclocking be worth it?

 

[Ace Modder]

if you are looking at it from a cost point of view. Then no... overclocked CPUs use more power than none overclocked, so if you did save by not needing new hardware as soon, then the saving would be gone in the form of slightly higher lecky bills.

 

[antobag]

Good point that I hadn't thought of, thanks

 

[marc2003]

The Noctua cooler is actually the biggest cause of the difference in cost (it's £40 more than the Dragonfly) but I feel it would be necessary for sufficient cooling on an overclocked CPU.

Nonsense. I have a 20 quid cooler on mine. I'm sure the noctua would run a few degrees cooler but I'd rather keep that 40-50 quid in my pocket.

 

[ukxenon]

As the old saying goes .....you get what you pay for

 

[Begbie]

Was there not a thread recently, stating the non ks are now clockable?

 

[PieEater]

I would look at the applications / games that you are likely to use your computer for specifically whether they would benefit from higher clock speeds on the CPU as this should better inform your decision as to whether a faster rig would be worth the extra outlay.

If the extra cost is an issue then you could save a bit on the cooler baring in mind that you do tend to get what you pay for in terms of performance and noise levels.

 

[PieEater]

Was there not a thread recently, stating the non ks are now clockable?

I'm pretty sure that this is for Skylake only and that Intel are doing their best to get manufacturers to reverse the BIOS changes that made this possible.

Source

 

[Disco_P]

I'd get the titan dragon fly, the z97 board and K CPU.

Overclocking isn't important when stuff is new but in the years that follow you'll be happy for the 30% performance boost. If I had bought an i5 2400 4 years ago I would have had to upgrade a while ago. Instead I spent about £30 more for the 2550K and I still use it today with plenty of life left

 

[flowrider99]

I'm pretty sure that this is for Skylake only and that Intel are doing their best to get manufacturers to reverse the BIOS changes that made this possible.

Source

ASRocks latest Z170 BIOS released this week removes the OC facility.

EDIT: Just seen your link re ASRock

 

[antobag]

Thank you to all of you for your answers.

 

[GIBSrUS]

if you are looking at it from a cost point of view. Then no... overclocked CPUs use more power than none overclocked, so if you did save by not needing new hardware as soon, then the saving would be gone in the form of slightly higher lecky bills.

That's not entirely true, you can get a nice overclock on most components without upping the power (V) supplied, and therefore keep running costs the same.

 

[Minstadave]

That's not entirely true, you can get a nice overclock on most components without upping the power (V) supplied, and therefore keep running costs the same.

No he's entirely correct. Running your CPU faster even at the same voltage will increase power use - it'll draw more current.