StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Is overclocking usually advised?

I just want to know if I should leave my Phenom II X4 940 the way it is or open all the cores and let 'er rip.

Not really that useful these days unless you're looking to show how "1337" you are or you really want to punish your PC. Chances are you won't be running many apps that really tax the processor unless you're some kind of developer or do a lot of video transcoding.

I'd rather not do that. I don't do anything except play games mostly. I was just wondering if it would have helped so I could max out settings.

Thanks.

ZGundam wrote:I'd rather not do that. I don't do anything except play games mostly. I was just wondering if it would have helped so I could max out settings.

Thanks.

For video games? Get a better video card. Your processor usually isn't the bottleneck in gaming.

General Zod wrote:

ZGundam wrote:I'd rather not do that. I don't do anything except play games mostly. I was just wondering if it would have helped so I could max out settings.

Thanks.

For video games? Get a better video card. Your processor usually isn't the bottleneck in gaming.

I have a GTX 260 896 MB

Then get more RAM and clean out your PC a bit.

Overclocking isn't complicated, just get a better heatsink for you video card and use an app set the clockspeed higher. But I think that for the same amount of money, you might as well make a proper upgrade. Hell, you might even attach another video card.

And what do you mean "open all the cores"? I thought all multi-core CPUs had its cores avalaible by default?

Some of AMD's processors had a 3rd core that you could "unlock" through whatever.

Generally speaking, overclocking is an enormous fucking waste of time. Don't bother.

People with 260s want to overclock? LOL.

Here's a bit of advice from the real world; don't run 'full settings'. 'Full settings' include massive resource hogs that produce fuck-all visual benefit. Set everything to max, then turn down the irrelevant shit until you start noticing a difference you care about performance-wise and leave it there. Who gives a fuck if you can play with the grass slider in STALKER at full? A normal person with a $5 computer can play it visually identical but with the grass at 22% and you CAN'T SEE THE DIFFERENCE. Huge shadowmaps on older games? TOTAL WASTE OF GRUNT AND WILL HALVE YOUR FRAMES. Focus on actual results (ie, what it looks like) rather than stupid meaningless shit (ie, how high your sliders are) and your 260 will be FINE.

Joviwan wrote:Some of AMD's processors had a 3rd core that you could "unlock" through whatever.

He has a quad-core processor in the first place, and that third core is usually disabled for a reason (e.g. it doesn't meet QA).

So he has a four-core CPU and... his third core is disabled? How did that happen?

Phongn may mean that it's manufactured as a four-core, but sold as something else with some cores disabled (due to marketing, manufacturing yields, etc). I don't follow AMD hardware, but this sort of thing isn't uncommon (famously 'upgradable' video cards of the early 21st century, etc).

Stark is correct; apologies for my unclear statement.

So let me try to get this straight:
A CPU comes out manufactured as a four-core but for whatever reason, is one of its cores are disabled, thus effectively having only a two-three cored CPU?

Could someone elaborate on why a core would be disabled?

Zixinus wrote:So let me try to get this straight:
A CPU comes out manufactured as a four-core but for whatever reason, is one of its cores are disabled, thus effectively having only a two-three cored CPU?

Could someone elaborate on why a core would be disabled?

One of the cores probably tested as faulty - but rather than toss the whole thing, they just disable one of the cores and sell it as a three-core chip.

Alternatively, they've got better yields than they thought, but in order to maintain market segmentation, they just turn off one of the cores and sell it as a cheaper chip. Same thing can happen with clock speed bins too, if they've got a glut of chips that test as working well at the high speed bins.

One of the major problems with overclocking is silent data corruption of everything being touched by the CPU.

With the gfx card this just produces artifacting or system crashes. But a overclocked CPU can causes errors which look like; bad motherboard, bad hard drive, bad ram, etc.

Worse case, you endup needed to completely reinstall your OS after fixing the overclocking because all of your data on the disk has random silent errors in it.

Ok, this is getting stupid.

All I asked was if overclocking was advised. The answer is obiously: Fuck No.

GEEZ!!

Xon wrote:One of the major problems with overclocking is silent data corruption of everything being touched by the CPU.

Well, it does depend on how far you're pushing the CPU.

phongn wrote:Well, it does depend on how far you're pushing the CPU.

Obviously it depends on the CPU. An, older, example of the wierdness you can get from overclocking is;linky.

Xon wrote:

phongn wrote:Well, it does depend on how far you're pushing the CPU.

Obviously it depends on the CPU. An, older, example of the wierdness you can get from overclocking is;linky.

Hah! I knew precisely what link you were going to send me before I even clicked it

AFAIK, modern CPUs tend to be more resistant to unwanted side effects (plus there are some testing tools to check for obvious corruption)

Wouldn't overclocking, due to the effects of overheating, also drastically reduce the lifespan of the CPU?

phongn wrote:Hah! I knew precisely what link you were going to send me before I even clicked it

The Old New Thing is the gold standard which I judge tech blogs these days

AFAIK, modern CPUs tend to be more resistant to unwanted side effects (plus there are some testing tools to check for obvious corruption)

Modern CPUs dynamically underclock themselves in the event of overheating well before they hit thier thermal limits which does migrate a lot of potential issues.

Also the public availability of IntelBurnTest which makes testing a CPU for stability trivial is a god-send.

Zixinus wrote:Wouldn't overclocking, due to the effects of overheating, also drastically reduce the lifespan of the CPU?

Depends on how hard you overclock and how well you cool; you're probably going to get into bigger trouble with the overvoltage that gets employed with heavier overclocks.

ZGundam wrote:Ok, this is getting stupid.

All I asked was if overclocking was advised. The answer is obiously: Fuck No.

GEEZ!!

Sooner or later, you will learn what makes a discussion forum different from a support forum.

...although mind you, there is ONE exception to this rule. If you play MS Flight Simulator X, you do want to overclock. That game is completely and utterly CPU bound. Every Mhz you can squeeze out of your CPU will translate into more FPS. Video card is pretty much irrelevant, IIRC a 7600GT and a dual 8800GTX will differ by a massive 2FPS when put into the same computer. Yeah, it's that CPU bottlenecked.