Official "Overclocking Help" Thread

[Harro]

What motherboard do you have? If you want your games to run smoother enable AAC if it has it. You might be able to unlock a core or two.

Gigabyte 880GMA-UD2H. One of the first things I tried was unlocking, but with no success - although I can't say I've tried abs everything in that regard. According to the Gigabyte forums, some ppl who've had success with their 555's on Asus or MSI boards have run into difficulty with exactly the same chip on this specific mobo. In that case, I can't tell if it's the board or the chip that's not working, as I don't have anymore of either to test with.

[Toxxyc]

Hello all :)

I wasn't sure if this should go in the Upgrade or the Overclock thread, as it involves upgrading my pc to overclock it. I'm wanting to get the most out of my phenom II x2 555 BE. Currently, without upping the voltages, I can get it running stably on Prime95 with the multiplier set to 18x (=3.6GHz). I have three questions:

1) will OCing the chip get it to run games any smoother? (assuming the graphics card and ram are more than up to the job)
2) at what point will OCing it not see any improvement?
3) I'm currently using the stock-cooler - in order to get the max beneficial OC, is there a custom cooler in the R200-R400 range that can do the job?

Thank you for your time :)

1. No, not always. In gaming, for "smoothness" you generally rely on your graphics card much more than you do on your CPU. Overclocking will help for load times and large calculations though, and as such you can experience better gameplay all round.
2. At the point where you have rediculously high clock speeds compared to the amount of cores on your CPU. For example, a simple 3.2GHz twin-core CPU will give much better performance in modern applications than a superclocked, 4.4GHz single-core CPU. You need to find a balance between available threads and core speed, based upon what you use your PC for most.
3. The Cooler Master Hyper 212+ is by far the best choice here. Usually just under R300 for the cooler with it's standard 120mm fan, another R80~ would get you another 120mm fan to place the cooler in a push-pull configuration for insane cooling. I have one, and I must say I'm still amazed every time I check the temps on my CPU. It is massive though, so make sure it will fit in your case before getting it.

[Harro]

1. No, not always. In gaming, for "smoothness" you generally rely on your graphics card much more than you do on your CPU. Overclocking will help for load times and large calculations though, and as such you can experience better gameplay all round.
2. At the point where you have rediculously high clock speeds compared to the amount of cores on your CPU. For example, a simple 3.2GHz twin-core CPU will give much better performance in modern applications than a superclocked, 4.4GHz single-core CPU. You need to find a balance between available threads and core speed, based upon what you use your PC for most.
3. The Cooler Master Hyper 212+ is by far the best choice here. Usually just under R300 for the cooler with it's standard 120mm fan, another R80~ would get you another 120mm fan to place the cooler in a push-pull configuration for insane cooling. I have one, and I must say I'm still amazed every time I check the temps on my CPU. It is massive though, so make sure it will fit in your case before getting it.

So how much do u reckon I want to overclock it before it definitely becomes pointless at improving gameplay? 4GHz?

[Toxxyc]

So how much do u reckon I want to overclock it before it definitely becomes pointless at improving gameplay? 4GHz?

I think 3.6GHz (where you are) more or less hits the spot. Seeing as how the CPU only has 2 threads (and I don't believe the 555 has hyper threading technology), you are going to start limiting your overall speed more by the fact that you have only 2 threads as opposed to the fact that the CPU cannot process any faster that it does (3.6GHz). In gaming you seriously won't see much difference between 3.6GHz and 4.0GHz with that CPU, so I wouldn't recommend going higher. You will only stress the CPU without need and heat it up without reason. If you want to, I'd recommend getting 3DMark and then test your CPU at reference speed (3.2GHz), the speed where you are at now (3.6GHz) and the furthest you can go (about 4.0GHz~4.2GHz, if the cooler permits), and see what scores you get. The scores mean absolutely nothing to hard gaming, but you can see how much (in theory) the CPU improves, and you'll see where it starts getting useless to push the CPU further.

Once more: Gameplay relies on your GPU much more than on your CPU. Rather look at a solid OC for your GPU to see improvements in games. Specially with PhysX, the GPU is a much more used part in your PC, and as such demands more attention. For example, a Core i5-2300 & GTX580 combo will (by miles and miles) outperform a Core i7-2600K OC & GTS440 combo in any 3D game. :)

[Cranky]

toxxyc nailed it .. do the test and see for yourself ... my score only improved by 60 point in 3dmark11 when i boosted my I7 from 3.6Ghz to 3.9Ghz

[Harro]

I think 3.6GHz (where you are) more or less hits the spot. Seeing as how the CPU only has 2 threads (and I don't believe the 555 has hyper threading technology), you are going to start limiting your overall speed more by the fact that you have only 2 threads as opposed to the fact that the CPU cannot process any faster that it does (3.6GHz). In gaming you seriously won't see much difference between 3.6GHz and 4.0GHz with that CPU, so I wouldn't recommend going higher. You will only stress the CPU without need and heat it up without reason. If you want to, I'd recommend getting 3DMark and then test your CPU at reference speed (3.2GHz), the speed where you are at now (3.6GHz) and the furthest you can go (about 4.0GHz~4.2GHz, if the cooler permits), and see what scores you get. The scores mean absolutely nothing to hard gaming, but you can see how much (in theory) the CPU improves, and you'll see where it starts getting useless to push the CPU further.

Once more: Gameplay relies on your GPU much more than on your CPU. Rather look at a solid OC for your GPU to see improvements in games. Specially with PhysX, the GPU is a much more used part in your PC, and as such demands more attention. For example, a Core i5-2300 & GTX580 combo will (by miles and miles) outperform a Core i7-2600K OC & GTS440 combo in any 3D game. :)

I'm specifically trying to reduce the loading times on COD Modern Warefare 2 and Crysis 2. My specs are:

phenom II x2 555 (@3.6GHz)
gigabyte 880GA-UD2H
2GB Patrion DDR3 RAM @1333MHz
Sapphire HD 6870
Screen resolution: 1440x900
Windows 7 64-bit

As far as I can see, the 6870 isn't having a problem at all. What I'm getting are rather slow load times, lag at the beginning of the mission, and the odd lag when things get intense. This all leads me to believe that the cpu isn't quite keeping up. I already noticed a fairly decent improvement in these areas when I OC'd from 3.2 to 3.6.

I know that quad cores are the way to go, but I reckoned I'd wait for bulldozer and the see if i couldn't squeeze a little more out of my dual core. Based on all that, do u still reckon it's necessary to get the cooler (@ 3.6Ghz, i hardly go over 50 celcius, so pointless getting a cooler for my cpu as is) and try OC more? or is there something else I'm missing, like OC'ing the RAM?

[Chevron]

I'm specifically trying to reduce the loading times on COD Modern Warefare 2 and Crysis 2. My specs are:

phenom II x2 555 (@3.6GHz)
gigabyte 880GA-UD2H
2GB Patrion DDR3 RAM @1333MHz
Sapphire HD 6870
Screen resolution: 1440x900
Windows 7 64-bit

As far as I can see, the 6870 isn't having a problem at all. What I'm getting are rather slow load times, lag at the beginning of the mission, and the odd lag when things get intense. This all leads me to believe that the cpu isn't quite keeping up. I already noticed a fairly decent improvement in these areas when I OC'd from 3.2 to 3.6.

I know that quad cores are the way to go, but I reckoned I'd wait for bulldozer and the see if i couldn't squeeze a little more out of my dual core. Based on all that, do u still reckon it's necessary to get the cooler (@ 3.6Ghz, i hardly go over 50 celcius, so pointless getting a cooler for my cpu as is) and try OC more? or is there something else I'm missing, like OC'ing the RAM?

Get an SSD. Good call on waiting for Bulldozer.

[GeometriX]

Without a strong-enough CPU to back it up, an SSD won't reduce loading times in COD by as much as you'd expect. When I got my SSD, I was still on a C2D E6750, and the loading times didn't really come down that far. Only once I moved up to my current C2Q QX9650 did I see a major decrease (and I mean major).

Still, getting an SSD now will enable any future upgrades to really shine, and generally improve performance.

I'd say get some more RAM before doing anything, though. 2GB on a modern machine? The lag you describe is very typical of insufficient RAM.

[vanatic]

Get an SSD.

Someone won the lotto. xD

I know that quad cores are the way to go, but I reckoned I'd wait for bulldozer and the see if i couldn't squeeze a little more out of my dual core.

I am currently running a Phenom II 945 at the stock 3.0GHz and a HD5770 also at stock and my loading times and game play on MW2 is perfect with all the setting maxed out, given its a four core, but I think Chevron hit it.

Is your HDD not maybe and IDE, because that will significantly slow down your load and access times. An SSD is the definition of speed when it comes to hard drives, but a SATA II will also work perfectly. There are some relly good deals on at the moment.

500GB @ R335.00
1TB @ R500.00

And from what Ive heard, Sandy Bridge is thee way to go, so if you are serious about wanting a future proof CPU, I suggest that.

And GeometriX makes a good point. Windows 7 needs AT LEAST 2GB of RAM to work properly. So that could maybe impact your gaming experience in some way too.

[Harro]

I definitely have a SATA hdd, although it's a 5 year old 250GB one. Would that have any impact on performance?

I see that, for now, RAM should be my primary focus. In order to keep this sort-of relevant to the OC thread, let me ask about overclocking that. As mentioned, I have a 2GB dimm of DDR3 1333. Obviously the cheapest next step would be to buy another identical dimm. Does OC'ing RAM make any difference to the above mentioned aspects of gameplay? if so, should I rather look at investing in DDR3 1600MHz-rated modules?

As a side note: since the turn of the century, the standard RAM amount has roughly doubled every 2 years. at this rate, processors and operating systems will need to move onto 128-bit architecture by 2078, when 18 446 PetaBytes will be the norm

[Chevron]

I definitely have a SATA hdd, although it's a 5 year old 250GB one. Would that have any impact on performance?

I see that, for now, RAM should be my primary focus. In order to keep this sort-of relevant to the OC thread, let me ask about overclocking that. As mentioned, I have a 2GB dimm of DDR3 1333. Obviously the cheapest next step would be to buy another identical dimm. Does OC'ing RAM make any difference to the above mentioned aspects of gameplay? if so, should I rather look at investing in DDR3 1600MHz-rated modules?

As a side note: since the turn of the century, the standard RAM amount has roughly doubled every 2 years. at this rate, processors and operating systems will need to move onto 128-bit architecture by 2078, when 18 446 PetaBytes will be the norm

No and No.

[Toxxyc]

Someone won the lotto. xD

Actually, no. SSD's are now at the point where it is actually very viable to buy one. SSD's can now be bought for a lower price than most HDD's, with R800 or even less being perfectly enough to get a decent SSD, with 30GB of space, making it enough for your OS and crucial drivers. For gaming you'd need something bigger though, with R1,200 being a more realistic budget for sizes of around 64GB. Sounds expensive, but with the new Intel chipsets and CPU's, an SSD can now be used as a caching drive as well, so the costs are getting more and more justified. :)

And GeometriX makes a good point. Windows 7 needs AT LEAST 2GB of RAM to work properly. So that could maybe impact your gaming experience in some way too.

True that. But it must be mentioned that Win7 may use the full 2GB during light use, but it releases a lot of memory once it becomes needed by games and stuff.

I see that, for now, RAM should be my primary focus. In order to keep this sort-of relevant to the OC thread, let me ask about overclocking that. As mentioned, I have a 2GB dimm of DDR3 1333. Obviously the cheapest next step would be to buy another identical dimm. Does OC'ing RAM make any difference to the above mentioned aspects of gameplay? if so, should I rather look at investing in DDR3 1600MHz-rated modules?

RAM overclocking won't give you any noticeable performance increase in games, at all. In fact, you won't even notice a difference in gaming between RAM running at 1333MHz and RAM running at 2133MHz, as the CPU can only use something like 1333MHz (depending on the CPU, of course). RAM overclocking is totally overrated, and getting another 2GB module is by far your best bet. When looking at the Bulldozer system though, make a point of it to get a motherboard with at least 4 RAM slots, so that you can populate them with other RAM chips as well when the time is right, should you need more.

Just for LULz, I'm still using 3GB of DDR2 RAM at 800MHz, and my Crysis 2 loads in seconds. I'm using WinXP Pro SP3 (let the comments commence!) though, so that could also have an impact (DX9 and stuff).

[Harro]

Oki-dokes, another 2GB dimm to start off with it is. I'll get back to you all once I've gotten a hold of it and have had a chance to test for any difference. Thank you for your help so far :)

[gordanfreeman50]

Just for LULz, I'm still using 3GB of DDR2 RAM at 800MHz, and my Crysis 2 loads in seconds. I'm using WinXP Pro SP3 (let the comments commence!) though, so that could also have an impact (DX9 and stuff).

HA !
I just like windows seven because of the popup windows and the way of navigating and a less busy taskbar.
XP is cool, just can't ever go back! It's like having an iPod, it breaks and you get a *NEW* one as a gift from a non techie friend. and then it is one of those cheap chinese ones. I have only 2GB, next upgrade is sound though

[Harro]

Just for LULz, I'm still using 3GB of DDR2 RAM at 800MHz, and my Crysis 2 loads in seconds. I'm using WinXP Pro SP3 (let the comments commence!) though, so that could also have an impact (DX9 and stuff).

By far the best upgrade that windows 7 has offered me so far is its caching all my files into RAM - I used to loathe waiting for XP to load my files from the harddrive. Now I just wait about 20 seconds on boot-up, and iTunes loads in less than half the time.

Actually, Crysis 2 (correct me if I'm wrong) is currently only being distributed with DX9 support, and I remember there being an article last year in PC Format which showed that winXP was actually slightly better than win7 at running games in DX9 (something like a 2 fps difference). Couple that with the fact that you've got 3GB's of RAM, and that XP is less RAM hungry, it's almost not surprising that Crysis 2 loads faster for you than it does for me, with no difference in graphics quality

P.S. Apologies for going a lil off topic :)

[Toxxyc]

^ Could most possibly be... :D

[Cranky]

while on DX verions .. BF 3 wont run on XP :D due to the higher than Dx9 only support :D

[Toi]

So last night I decided that I'm going to overclock my CPU (GPUs to follow). First things first, I removed my cooler and CPU and started the tedious process of polishing the top of my CPU and bottom of my cooler for optimal cooling.

I clocked the core of my i7 950 to 3.33 ghz, idle temp is 34deg and load is 67deg. The system is nice and stable with no problems at all. I'll post my memory speed and voltages tonight.

What I want to know is can I push it more, say to 3.6 ghz?

Note: I would never sacrifice stability so I'm not clocking it to 4 ghz+ or any **** like that.

[Toxxyc]

So last night I decided that I'm going to overclock my CPU (GPUs to follow). First things first, I removed my cooler and CPU and started the tedious process of polishing the top of my CPU and bottom of my cooler for optimal cooling.

I clocked the core of my i7 950 to 3.33 ghz, idle temp is 34deg and load is 67deg. The system is nice and stable with no problems at all. I'll post my memory speed and voltages tonight.

What I want to know is can I push it more, say to 3.6 ghz?

Note: I would never sacrifice stability so I'm not clocking it to 4 ghz+ or any **** like that.

First of all - RAM overclocking is overrated. You won't see a difference, don't do it. You'll uselessly shorten the life of your memory and risk overheating and instability for no gain in gaming performance whatsoever.

Then, from 3.0GHz to 3.33GHz is really little. Load temps are where I would like my CPU to stop, so if it were up to me I wouldn't go higher. The best recommendation I can give you is to get an aftermarket CPU cooler. Cheap coolers include the Cooler Master Hyper 212+, which is one of the best value-for-money coolers you can buy. I own one, with an added 120mm extracting fan, and my Q8400 Core 2 Quad is overclocked from 2.66GHz to 3.2GHz, stable and with temps never exceeding 50'C under full load. Idle temps can be so low at 29'C, and I've had it down to 24'C once at an outdoor party. Generally overclocking isn't recommended with stock coolers, and it can be seen with a minute OC of 0.33GHz compared to your increase in temperature.

Then, when overclocking GPU's, be careful. A lot of heat builds up in addition to standard heat, and the cards may very easily overheat in a SLI setup. I wouldn't recommend it at all, you can take anything out there currently anyway, so unless you are looking for a superb 3DMark score (that tells you nothing for gaming) it's really just going to shorten the lifespan of your graphics cards.

[Toi]

I'm using a Coolermaster V6 so I'm surprised the temps are so high. I've never in my life actually checked how to apply thermal paste, I just always apply an even layer of about 1 mm over the CPU. Now I'm reading that I only need to apply a very small line over the CPU.

I've had an AMD rig (yes I know they run a lot cooler than Intel i7s) that idled at 19 deg with an aircooler during summer. Just did the same polished surface method.