Jack the nb clock up on that phenom and watch the frames go up.

beefdog

I was wondering if you could test BFBC2 after seeing this benchmark I upped my OC to 3,4GHz but didn't get any results.

There is always a sweet spot.

Little contribution:

Sanitar

This is almost exactly what i got with a Q6600 from 2.4GHz to 3.0GHZ and 2 8800GT's, min went up by 5 and max by 2FPS I also had no increase from 3GHz to 3.4GHz and when I lowerd my multi and kept the FSB high Q6600@ 2.7GHz there was no difference.

overclocking ur cpu does increase performance in games

djdarkforces

Maybe you should read the thread.

You say that you want everyone to try it out for themselves but when someone like hartsick does and gives back his opinion you start to get personal and throw out more ridiculous claims. Honestly when me and superclocked were talking to you we weren't even arguing we were just talking and you got all defensive and angry for no reason. We only said in essence that overclocking the CPU increased gaming performance which is fact and you just would not have it and for some reason linked us pointless cpu benchmarks which showed nothing.V4LENT1NE

Absolute nonsense I'm done with you good day.

[QUOTE="Lach0121"]

i currently have all my cpu oc'ing off,

but my ratio is 1:2, is that good, should i not worry with it. rig is in sig.

hartsickdiscipl

You shouldn't worry about anything. The OP seems to be basing his entire argument off Crysis benchmarking with GPUs from 2008 that weren't capable of pushing more FPS in that specific game whether the CPU was at 2.7ghz or 4.0ghz. It's pretty common knowledge that if you're playing Crysis on an E8200 with an 8800gt as your GPU, and you're only getting 30fps.. the issue is your GPU, not the E8200. You can OC your E8200 till you're blue in the face, you're not going to get more FPS out of that 8800gt in Crysis. Now if you replace the 8800gt with a 5970 and play Crysis, you've got a totally different story. You will see gains by going from 2.66ghz to 3.5ghz (or whatever you can get out of that CPU), because the 5970 isn't choking the rest of the system in that game like the 8800gt did.

The link that the OP posted in his/her opening post for this thread proves nothing about basic overclocking methodology in general.. All it did was show what helped that Jason guy get a little more performance out of Crysis specifically with his GPU that was struggling with the game. Of course overclocking the GPU gives better results in Crysis than overclocking the CPU.. Because the GPU was the bottleneck in that game. It's always going to be that way in any game. Overclocking the specific part of your system that the particular game that you're testing stresses the most yields the best results. The OP tried to take that and use it as evidence that this might be the right way to overclock all the time.. even though many years of testing had already proved that getting the most pure clock speed out of your CPU/GPU combo is almost always the right way to go.

I thought my argument was for people to test it for themselves and find out what works best on there system and to learn more about the FSB, CPU, RAM and GPU relationship and to stop people from making ridicules claims based on the I BELIEVE IN THE OC GOD I don't need to test prove or understand anything.Maybe you should read through the thread again ,and your post is full of contradicting statements and baseless accusations,do i really have to dissect this post for you maybe you should read through it again to.

i currently have all my cpu oc'ing off,

but my ratio is 1:2, is that good, should i not worry with it. rig is in sig.

Lach0121

Nobody can tell you whats best every system is different you have to run benchmarks and find out for yourself you should start with a 1:1 and go from there.but test it don't just believe it.OC'ing is like a religion for some people they will just believe in it or run 1 or 2 benchmarks and proclaim themselves to be the second coming when it comes to your pc.

[QUOTE="risc-vs-cisc"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

The early results of my 3dmark Vantage test-

CPU @ 3700mhz via multiplier upped to 18.5, DDR3-1600 @ 1600mhz, HT link @ 2000mhz, FSB @ 200mhz, 5870@ 885/1235-Total score of 16,203. CPU score of 12,521, GPU score of 17,964.

CPU @ 3712mhz via FSB upped to 232mhz, multiplier @ stock 16.0, DDR3 @ 1546mhz (had to change divider to get stable OC), HT link @ 2320mhz, 5870@ 885/1235- Total score of 16,066. CPU score of 12,718, GPU score of 17,611.

I can attribute the slightly higher CPU score in FSB overclock run to the fact that the CPU was clocked 12mhz higher, in combination with the FSB/HT overclocks.

However, at least from this benchmark.. the overall better result was achieved by upping my multiplier instead of pushing the FSB and HT. I'll try a few more tests, including a Far Cry 2 Benchmark to see if it stays consistent. Also of note- My system temps rose 2-3 degrees Celcius while overclocking the FSB/HT instead of using the multiplier. Obviously when you use this approach, you may have to apply more voltage to more system components, as opposed to just increasing the CPU voltage for a pure multiplier overclock. I consider this a fairly major negative.

hartsickdiscipl

Also of note- My system temps rose 2-3 degrees Celcius while overclocking the FSB/HT instead of using the multiplier. Obviously when you use this approach, you may have to apply more voltage to more system components, as opposed to just increasing the CPU voltage for a pure multiplier overclock. I consider this a fairly major negative.

The goal is to get your system to 1:1 ratio and then test it against your OC in games theres a reason for this,and I'm not surprised your temps went up considering your @3.7 and i cant help much i havent used a AMD sinse athlon xp days the glory days.

Why would I take the multiplier down any lower than stock? That's pointless. This whole thread is pointless.

The point of this thread was to test the results of different methods of overclocking in different games, just because somebody in a forum almost 2 years ago said he wasn't seen any FPS gains in Crysis by going from 2.7 to 4ghz. Well of course he didn't see any gains in Crysis! The game is almost completely GPU limited. In 2008 when that Jason guy posted that on the other forum, there were no GPUs on the market strong enough to take advantage of the extra clock speed of the CPU that was pushing data to it. I bet if you took my 5870 back to 2008 and put it in Jason's system, you'd see a performance gain by taking the CPU from 2.7 to 4.0ghz, because at 2.7ghz the GPU would be bottlenecked. There simply weren't any GPUs around back then that were strong enough to push any extra FPS in Crysis specifically, even if the CPU was supplying alot more data due to being OC'd.

This thread is done.

Your wright and wrong the point of this thread was to indeed show that once your GPU was bottlenecked your CPU OC was a waste and it still applies today it was also to show that your CPU cant send or receive data faster than the FSB would allow, and to show the importance of a good OC,and to find what works best for you to actually test it and not just up the multiplier and believe it without running benchmarks its also from 9 months ago when people were claiming to get good FPS in crysis by pushing there systems into 3.6 and 4.0 without actually proving it like in this thread where things like this are still said.

"superclocked=The fastest CPU on the market would still be a bottleneck for any decent cards released in the past 2 years. Go big on the CPU, cool it well, and overclock it. Trust me, your video cards shader output is heavily dependent on the CPU keeping up. Shader output scales with CPU speed increase, even with my old 8800's and Wolfdale..."

I like how you go from this "The point of this thread was to test the results of different methods of overclocking in different games." to this "This thread is done." and whats with this "just because somebody in a forum almost 2 years ago said he wasn't seen any FPS gains" wow I thought i linked it because he actually showed proof and people might actually test it for themselves and actually stop making ridicules claims i guess its a good thing you're hear to end threads.

The early results of my 3dmark Vantage test-

CPU @ 3700mhz via multiplier upped to 18.5, DDR3-1600 @ 1600mhz, HT link @ 2000mhz, FSB @ 200mhz, 5870@ 885/1235-Total score of 16,203. CPU score of 12,521, GPU score of 17,964.

CPU @ 3712mhz via FSB upped to 232mhz, multiplier @ stock 16.0, DDR3 @ 1546mhz (had to change divider to get stable OC), HT link @ 2320mhz, 5870@ 885/1235- Total score of 16,066. CPU score of 12,718, GPU score of 17,611.

I can attribute the slightly higher CPU score in FSB overclock run to the fact that the CPU was clocked 12mhz higher, in combination with the FSB/HT overclocks.

However, at least from this benchmark.. the overall better result was achieved by upping my multiplier instead of pushing the FSB and HT. I'll try a few more tests, including a Far Cry 2 Benchmark to see if it stays consistent. Also of note- My system temps rose 2-3 degrees Celcius while overclocking the FSB/HT instead of using the multiplier. Obviously when you use this approach, you may have to apply more voltage to more system components, as opposed to just increasing the CPU voltage for a pure multiplier overclock. I consider this a fairly major negative.

hartsickdiscipl

Also of note- My system temps rose 2-3 degrees Celcius while overclocking the FSB/HT instead of using the multiplier. Obviously when you use this approach, you may have to apply more voltage to more system components, as opposed to just increasing the CPU voltage for a pure multiplier overclock. I consider this a fairly major negative.

The goal is to get your system to 1:1 ratio and then test it against your OC in games theres a reason for this,and I'm not surprised your temps went up considering your @3.7 and i cant help much i havent used a AMD sinse athlon xp days the glory days.

[QUOTE="risc-vs-cisc"]

[QUOTE="MaoTheChimp"]

My respect for you just went down a few dozen notches.

MaoTheChimp

Are you sure you read the right thread,and all you have to do is test it for your self,wouldn't you rather have the facts right before your own eye's on your own system instead of just believing what you hear.And if you have that much respect for 3Dmark06 and the garbage he's been posting then I have none for you.

I hate to be this blunt, but Superclocked's answers are generally unbiased and backed with proof, but you seem to have the tendency to shout down anyone who contradicts with what you're saying.

Also, isn't what you're saying about 3Dmark 06 a double standard? On one hand, you're disqualifying 3Dmark 06 by calling it "garbage", yet you're basing all your proof on Crysis benchmarks :?

The thing is I don't care if you do that just test the games for yourself prov it to yourself and if you have the time post some screens HELL PROVE ME WRONG. hate me misquote me all you want but test the damn thing your self and stop just believing.

"""""""""but Superclocked's answers are generally unbiased and backed with proof, but you seem to have the tendency to shout down anyone who contradicts with what you're saying."""""""""""""

So this is unbiased and backed with proof.

"superclocked=The fastest CPU on the market would still be a bottleneck for any decent cards released in the past 2 years. Go big on the CPU, cool it well, and overclock it. Trust me, your video cards shader output is heavily dependent on the CPU keeping up. Shader output scales with CPU speed increase, even with my old 8800's and Wolfdale...

Or the rest of the garbage he posted in this THREAD.

I'm curious to see how this plays out with my system. I used to experiment alot with benchmarking on my old Socket 939 X2 4400+ system. I always found that dropping my RAM from 400 to 333 didn't make a lick of difference in my performance. Obviously I DID have to push my FSB speed up to OC that chip since it didn't have an unlocked multiplier. I'll try some testing on my system tonight to see how 3dmark Vantage shows.

hartsickdiscipl