post #21 of 21
I've got 6 cpu lan and have done overclocking in the past but the reality is it does not make that much real world difference and put much more heat into the room with the computers. I've had to vent that heat via ducts as the room get super hot. Ie. a 920i oc past 3.5 will start to really use much more electricity, heat etc. even if I go liquid (which I have) that heat has to go somewhere. It will go into the room or into the case. There is no free lunch. A 3.4 - 3.8 will maybe get you 2-3 fps more in a game. You most likely will not notice. People just like to tinker with cpus/vpus then run a bench and get happy they have 1 more fps. They spend more time benching and tweaking than playing games. Not saying anything wrong with that but overclocking is not really needed. To do it correctly you really need to check the power draw at a given OC setting. Also overclocking can induce cache errors that are corrected but add extra cycles. This will not be caught by memtest.

There are far more games that are VPU dependant than CPU. A strong video card with a weaker cpu can be better than faster cpu and slower vpu.

Example. Starcraft II has a game called desert strike. Its a very demanding game, in sudden death frame rates are 0-10 fps. Most people get 2 fps. at end.

My buddy said its all CPU and dont need a strong vpu. So I put it to the test.

Desert Strike Hots Edition by Zalos. v 1.78 sudden death (last round)

1. I7 920@ 3.3ghz, ATI 5870 - 1-5 fps
2. I7 920@ 3.3ghz, GTX 760OC - 10-25 fps
3. I7 3770K@3.9ghz, GTX 570 - 3-8 fps

So the old crusty I7 920 with GTX 760 is better than 3770k (a superior cpu) with a GTX 570.

And that was in a game thought to be CPU bound.

You are almost always better off having a strong vid card. I could overclock that 3770k to 4.5 and it still would not catch the slower 920 with the better video card.