3570K OC - performance increment

[uptech]

I'm building a new PC and 3570K costs $40 more than 3470, and it's only 0.1Ghz. I WOULD overclock my 3570K but not that the lifetime would decrease... So I think I would be able to overclock it to something like 4.5Ghz, maybe more, maybe less (increasing the voltage to 1.1v or so).

I'm short on cash, so $40 matters to me. Does anyone have a real-life gaming comparison of 3570K OCed like this vs. no OC? Or maybe even a comparison to 3470?

I would much appreciate this.

P.S. I CAN afford it, but I can use the $40 for something else otherwise. I am not sure if it's worth it, that's all. That's why I'm asking for real-world performance.

[eidairaman1]

Originally Posted by uptech

I'm building a new PC and 3570K costs $40 more than 3470, and it's only 0.1Ghz. I WOULD overclock my 3570K but not that the lifetime would decrease... So I think I would be able to overclock it to something like 4.5Ghz, maybe more, maybe less (increasing the voltage to 1.1v or so).

I'm short on cash, so $40 matters to me. Does anyone have a real-life gaming comparison of 3570K OCed like this vs. no OC? Or maybe even a comparison to 3470?

I would much appreciate this.

just save a lil more cash

[DarkOCean]

yeah just wait until you have the cash to buy the k.

[uptech]

Originally Posted by eidairaman1

just save a lil more cash

I can afford it, I'm just not sure if it's worth it. I could buy a bunch of fans, a webcam, put it to the SSD fund, etc.. That's why I'm asking about real-world performance.

[Flibolito]

Depends since on a stock intel heatsink it might get a little warm under the hood. so a good solid 4.5GHz might not be attainable that way and might cost another 50-60 in a good heatsink. Stock intel is good for about 4.0GHz sustained maybe a bit higher if just gaming in a cool room. So there is more to consider here than just the $40. In the end it is better to spend the extra and OC it because it will extend the lifespan rather than shortening it since a few years from now the extra clock speed will keep it viable.

[eidairaman1]

Originally Posted by Flibolito

Depends since on a stock intel heatsink it might get a little warm under the hood. so a good solid 4.5GHz might not be attainable that way and might cost another 50-60 in a good heatsink. Stock intel is good for about 4.0GHz sustained maybe a bit higher if just gaming in a cool room. So there is more to consider here than just the $40. In the end it is better to spend the extra and OC it because it will extend the lifespan rather than shortening it since a few years from now the extra clock speed will keep it viable.

overclocking any cpu shortens the lifespan and causes instability

Originally Posted by uptech

I can afford it, I'm just not sure if it's worth it. I could buy a bunch of fans, a webcam, put it to the SSD fund, etc.. That's why I'm asking about real-world performance.

compare specs of them both then decide- if cache and core levels are different same with Thermal Design Power then they are totally different. if they are the same other than the K being unlocked and .1 GHz difference then they perform the same. However the K Model has an unlocked multiplier so if you want to overclock high you can just dont expect to reach 4.5GHz on a locked model. Also K models lack virutalization too

[uptech]

Originally Posted by Flibolito

Depends since on a stock intel heatsink it might get a little warm under the hood. so a good solid 4.5GHz might not be attainable that way and might cost another 50-60 in a good heatsink. Stock intel is good for about 4.0GHz sustained maybe a bit higher if just gaming in a cool room. So there is more to consider here than just the $40. In the end it is better to spend the extra and OC it because it will extend the lifespan rather than shortening it since a few years from now the extra clock speed will keep it viable.

I don't think I'm going to need the extra power now, maybe in 6-12 months or so I will. So the solution of $30 for a cooler would be cheap. The question is, however, is the extra, total, $80 worth it or not. I don't know what performance increment it would give...

Originally Posted by eidairaman1

overclocking any cpu shortens the lifespan and causes instability



compare specs of them both then decide- if cache and core levels are different same with Thermal Design Power then they are totally different. if they are the same other than the K being unlocked and .1 GHz difference then they perform the same. However the K Model has an unlocked multiplier so if you want to overclock high you can just dont expect to reach 4.5GHz on a locked model. Also K models lack virutalization too

Yes it does, however it doesn't necessarily cause instability. Plenty of people run those CPUs over 5Ghz without any stability issues.

Specs are the same, except it has .1Ghz extra and is unlocked.

By the way, how can I use virtualization? I think it's only useful if I wanted to use something like VirtualBox?

[eidairaman1]

Originally Posted by uptech

I don't think I'm going to need the extra power now, maybe in 6-12 months or so I will. So the solution of $30 for a cooler would be cheap. The question is, however, is the extra, total, $80 worth it or not. I don't know what performance increment it would give...



Yes it does, however it doesn't necessarily cause instability. Plenty of people run those CPUs over 5Ghz without any stability issues.

Specs are the same, except it has .1Ghz extra and is unlocked.

By the way, how can I use virtualization? I think it's only useful if I wanted to use something like VirtualBox?

i dont see any here that run em 5.0GHz so its a moot point, Virtualization helps with any virtual programs. But If you really are not going to overclock at all you might aswell just stick on a Standard model.

[uptech]

Originally Posted by eidairaman1

i dont see any here that run em 5.0GHz so its a moot point, Virtualization helps with any virtual programs. But If you really are not going to overclock at all you might aswell just stick on a Standard model.

I don't see a point to OC now, but in a couple months, new technologies and all, there may be a very valid point to OC it to 4.5Ghz or so... But that's of course assuming that it WILL give me a performance boost, which is what I'm trying to find out here - what performance boost I would get.

[drdeathx]

Originally Posted by eidairaman1

overclocking any cpu shortens the lifespan and causes instability

He will not notice shorter lifespan(if much) if he stays resonable with overclock and since when did overclocking cause instablity? What are we talking 8 years to 7 years with a decent stable good temp overclock?

[TacoTown]

What are you going to be doing with the chip? Gaming, CAD?

[eidairaman1]

Originally Posted by drdeathx

He will not notice shorter lifespan(if much) if he stays resonable with overclock and since when did overclocking cause instablity? What are we talking 8 years to 7 years with a decent stable good temp overclock?

ask Qubit on that

[TacoTown]

Originally Posted by eidairaman1

ask Qubit on that

Then he has a shitty chip that he wasn't cooling well with the proper voltage. I have an Athlon XP 2500+ that has been overclocked since the day I got it and it's perfectly fine.

[uptech]

Originally Posted by TacoTown

What are you going to be doing?

That's what I'm trying to find out here, no luck yet.

Originally Posted by eidairaman1

ask Qubit on that

One incident doesn't mean that everything else even remotely similar is the same. It just means that it has happened once for that particular guy, with those particular conditions. I, however, don't know the details here and am going by what you and TacoTown have said.

So, without extensive testing with the same conditions, I go with TacoTown.

[Vlada011]

I hold my 3770k on stock for now. But I'm glad because my sample can stable 4.8GHz.
I will never go over 4.5GHz, that OC sounds good for me. And I suggest 4.5GHz like some last clock for air or closed liquid cooler. 4.5GHz is 30% over specification. ENOUGH.
Stable on 1.225-1.250V I can't damage chip with that OC in long-term use.
When you hit chip like that you can't complain about IB like bad overclocker.

[eidairaman1]

over prolonged time running a CPU out of its recommended range causes the die to break down internally. In Windows that means instability/BSODs. It Even degrades further especially when additional voltage has to be applied just to maintain that clock speed. It can get to the point where you can only run it at Stock speeds and nothing more.

You can overclock the non K model but you probably would be limited because of the Motherboards Bus speed. If overclocking isnt the main point of this machine Id go with the Non K Model and save the money. Otherwise if you decide to make it a main point go with it.

Personally Overclocking isnt anything special anymore...

[uptech]

Originally Posted by eidairaman1

over prolonged time running a CPU out of its recommended range causes the die to break down internally. In Windows that means instability/BSODs. It Even degrades further especially when additional voltage has to be applied just to maintain that clock speed. It can get to the point where you can only run it at Stock speeds and nothing more.

You can overclock the non K model but you probably would be limited because of the Motherboards Bus speed. If overclocking isnt the main point of this machine Id go with the Non K Model and save the money. Otherwise if you decide to make it a main point go with it.

Personally Overclocking isnt anything special anymore...

Personally, I don't see a point in OCing, I see a point in performance when it's needed however. That's why I'm trying to find out how much performance I would get.

[eidairaman1]

Originally Posted by uptech

Personally, I don't see a point in OCing, I see a point in performance when it's needed however. That's why I'm trying to find out how much performance I would get.

well if you see no point might aswell go for the Extreme Processor then that way you pay for what youre getting.

[cdawall]

Buy an 8320. They handle voltage and overclocking rather well are cheaper, boards will likely support the next batch of AMD chips unlike the 3570K you are looking at and performance will be similar overall with better performance flip-flopping between the two.

As for overclocking on either side. I built a rig 5 years ago with an overclocked C2D based Celeron and it has not degraded nor has the memory or board its installed to. Same goes for the Phenom X4 910 I have beat to death for 3-4 years and is still cranking out 3.4ghz.

[uptech]

Originally Posted by eidairaman1

well if you see no point might aswell go for the Extreme Processor then that way you pay for what youre getting.

Not sure what you mean by "Extreme Processor."

Originally Posted by cdawall

Buy an 8320. They handle voltage and overclocking rather well are cheaper, boards will likely support the next batch of AMD chips unlike the 3570K you are looking at and performance will be similar overall with better performance flip-flopping between the two.

As for overclocking on either side. I built a rig 5 years ago with an overclocked C2D based Celeron and it has not degraded nor has the memory or board its installed to. Same goes for the Phenom X4 910 I have beat to death for 3-4 years and is still cranking out 3.4ghz.

8320's much weaker than 3470, not to mention 3570K, NOT to mention OC.

[cdawall]

Originally Posted by uptech

8320's much weaker than 3470, not to mention 3570K, NOT to mention OC.

Depends what you are doing. Since you haven't mentioned that I have to guess. There are about a billion benchmarks that say you are wrong depending what you are doing.

[uptech]

Originally Posted by cdawall

Depends what you are doing. Since you haven't mentioned that I have to guess. There are about a billion benchmarks that say you are wrong depending what you are doing.

Actually I have in the OP - gaming.

[cdawall]

Originally Posted by uptech

Actually I have in the OP - gaming.

That's about as unspecific as normal computing. FPS? MMO? Skyrim? WTF are you doing with the computer?

Doesn't seem that bad in BF3



Seeing how most major game developers are going multithreaded are you sure you want to stick with something somewhat lacking in that department? Are you sure that is the wisest choice for being future proof? Single IPC is dieing, multithreading is gaining were do you want to be sitting? Don't forget LGA 1155 is sitting on the EOL charts with Haswell and LGA 1150 sitting on the horizon

[uptech]

Originally Posted by cdawall

That's about as unspecific as normal computing. FPS? MMO? Skyrim? WTF are you doing with the computer?

Doesn't seem that bad in BF3

Seeing how most major game developers are going multithreaded are you sure you want to stick with something somewhat lacking in that department? Are you sure that is the wisest choice for being future proof? Single IPC is dieing, multithreading is gaining were do you want to be sitting? Don't forget LGA 1155 is sitting on the EOL charts with Haswell and LGA 1150 sitting on the horizon

I'm playing all kinds of games, both new and old. And by all kinds I mean all kinds, I mean 10s, 100s of different games. So I can't be more specific here.

[eidairaman1]

why not step up to skt 2011 then?

heres a compare between certain models

http://ark.intel.com/compare/52214,6...75,65520,65523