Solved Overclocking? Really Worth it? (results from 2 PC's)

Ok this was originally a long post to write and i accidentally clicked BACK when i was going to publish.

basically i got 2 pcs, a laptop and a desktop, and i overclocked them.

Both had DDR2 667MHZ, C2D cpus and stock gpus.


I overclocked and got lower fps in games, longer boot times and increased heat.

Cpu-z also detected my desktop memory was at 233Mhz ddr and 466Mhz DDR2.

So that means overclocking reduces performance. I could see my pc stuttering on Plants Vs Zombies when overclocked from 2.4GHz to 3.7GHz. 2.4GHz ran smooth 3.7Ghz was like grinding sand paper along sharp rocks.

The post that was original had more results but im not going to spend another 1 hr of my day writing it out again and getting a sore wrist.

Over clocking a laptop is not recommended.
Those who have over clocked a desktop have shown some improvement.
Just watch the temps as you increase speed so goes the the temps. IMHO

I know it is not recommended but i do what i want to do. If i want to overclock a laptop i will.

Yes depending on hardware some will see an improvement. But my results show they dont.


EDIT: As i said i have been overclocking and testing clocks for over a year now.


Cheers

Of course you may do what you want.
I was just offering some advice not giving you a lecture.
Just don't want you to mess up your computer that you spent hard earned money on.

I know you were giving advice but i keep hearing NOT RECOMENDED FOR LAPTOPS. Its true though. I do things more careful than people think. And by the way


LAB RAT #2 was made with Pretty cheap parts!


Thanks for the advice.

But another problem is that you overclocked far too much. If you had overclocked less, you probably would have achieved better results.

Ok so i read the post by niemiro and ran a test with lab rat #2 (desktop). I did a small 3.0GHz to 3.2GHz and still had lower results. So then i did 3.GHz to 3.4GHz to see if i was overclocking too low. NO! still lower... so i tried 3.0GHz to 4.0GHz and... that wasround the same of 3.0GHz AND temps werein the 70's to 80's C.

I was thinking like 2.5 - 2.6GHz.

Overclocking is not worth it in my opinion unless you have high end hardware. Small overclock`s are definetly not worth it. As for laptops, they have very stringent heat and power limitations because of the design of the case and cooling.

i agree with roy69. Besides where did you get 2.5GHz from??? i had stock 3.0GHz. But 2.5 to 2.6 thats hardly and overclock. More like a.... babyclock.

I can tell you most likely why your overclock did worse.

Its temperature, all cpus when you get above a certain temp start to slow down to maintain a proper temp. They either cut the multi down or shut a core off. Overclocking ALWAYS produces alot more heat, and managing gthat heat is the biggest part of overclocking.

I can show plenty of yes overclocking is 100% useful., all my cpus are overclocked. My q6600 is only at 2.9Ghz, but it can be 97% astable at 3.1Ghz, and my i7 950 is running zat 4.0Ghz. I can stable it at 4.15Ghz but don't like running 80's C.

Honestly, I find it alittle suspect you got a 1Ghz overclock on a 775 chip without a serious cpu cooler.

775 cpus peak up around 65-70C before they start acting up and shutting down.

And if overclocking safely wasn't worth it, they wouldn't make faster chips, or now make 2 versions of the 1155 cpus.

Thanks for your response.

My 775 results for intel core 2 duo show that stock 3.0GHz runs around 40c while 3.4/7/9GHZ run about 58c. monitoring temps i have never gone over 74c idle 81c playing plants vs zombies!!!

My socket p t7100 runs at stock 1.8GHz and thats in the 50's. this is a laptop. Overclocked to 2.4GHz the temps rose to 70c.


i would not think temp is an issue for the desktop WITH an INTEL STOCK cpu cooler running ASUS Q-Fan on SILENT!!!
D:huh::huh:

Yha that is a bad thing... those are where the cpu starts throttling.

I run a huge heat sink on my q6600 tyo keep it low at 3.0+ Ghz

The stock setup is pure garbage.

nostaw5 said:

i agree with roy69. Besides where did you get 2.5GHz from??? i had stock 3.0GHz. But 2.5 to 2.6 thats hardly and overclock. More like a.... babyclock.

Click to expand...

nostaw5 said:

So that means overclocking reduces performance. I could see my pc stuttering on Plants Vs Zombies when overclocked from 2.4GHz to 3.7GHz. 2.4GHz ran smooth 3.7Ghz was like grinding sand paper along sharp rocks.

Click to expand...

You said that you had stock 2.4GHz, not 3.0GHz, and you don't seem like the sort of person to underclock...IMO. It seemed that you were saying that a massive overclock worsened things. A very good experiment would have been to work upwards, and find out where it changed from faster to slower. And for that, you must start at 0.1GHz more than stock, and work upwards in that step.

[H]ard|OCP - HardOCP Computer Hardware Reviews and News

This is the site for overclocking

Yup they really are [h]ard there.

I'm on there too.