Originally Posted by TwoCables
Generally, there's nothing wrong with leaving everything the way it is if performing the recommended stress tests proves that it's stable. However, it's entirely up to you.
For example: everyone likes to overclock differently. Some guys like to gradually keep increasing the overclock while other guys like to jump straight to their goal and then see what happens. So the answer to "can I just leave it be" is different for everyone: it depends on what you want to do. However, it can also depend on your settings because what if your voltage is higher than it needs to be? Or what if you have some other setting set that doesn't really have to be set?
When I overclocked my 2500K for the first time, I jumped straight to 4.7 GHz using a manual voltage. Then I posted my settings and someone showed me the joy of using an Offset voltage. Soon after that, I found myself going for 4.8 GHz and then I found myself cleaning up my settings by tweaking things here and there to see what I needed as well as what I didn't need.
I am curious though: if you aren't looking to make it faster, than are you only doing this for the fun of it? I mean, that's why I overclock: "because I can!"
I am doing this because I wanted the best chip, which is overclockable. I do alot of video recording/encoding and I want a modest OC. It doesn't need to be on the edge, as I prefer stability. Cutting down encoding time helps.
Also I elected not to go with some EE cpu as this rig runs 24/7 and the sandy bridge are better on power and heat conservation.
As it stood before this, I'd almost want to take all OC off to try and eliminate the bsod. Hopefully we nipped it though.
Here is the test after 14 hours which I just stopped it:
So unless you guys have a recommendation to change something, I'll leave it be and see how it responds from this point forward.
In short, because I have a 2600K, I want SOME OC. But stability and elimination of bsod are more important. I'll report back in a few days if no bsod, or on the next one.