OC vs stock

[andrew26]

A 3.2GHz stock processor would be more efficient than a 3.2GHz overclock wouldn't it?

 

[OTSS]

Well with speedstep kicking in on an overclock, yes I guess it would be. Also voltages are higher on an OC. But this is just what I think. Might be better off if someone knew for sure. Also depends on the CPU.

 

[wol-va-rine]

Well with speedstep kicking in on an overclock, yes I guess it would be. Also voltages are higher on an OC. But this is just what I think. Might be better off if someone knew for sure. Also depends on the CPU.

if you don't increase the voltages for your OC it's the same, I have a 25% OC with no voltage change, also, on Intel's, the cpu still steps down on idle relative to the OC, without an OC my cpu idles at 1.6GHZ, but with the OC it now idles at 2.0GHZ...

 

[worshipme]

A 3.2GHz stock processor would be more efficient than a 3.2GHz overclock wouldn't it?

Depends on the CPUs.

If you compare a 6400+ X2 (the old one) and an overclocked 5400+ X2, although they'll be running at the same clock speed, the 6400+ still has a larger cache.

What CPUs are you talking about, exactly?

 

[rohan23]

if you don't increase the voltages for your OC it's the same, I have a 25% OC with no voltage change, also, on Intel's, the cpu still steps down on idle relative to the OC, without an OC my cpu idles at 1.6GHZ, but with the OC it now idles at 2.0GHZ...

Speedstep is an option you can turn off.

 

[ssc456]

it depends if your talking about 2 CPU's with the same archtecture wat the same cache + FSb but diff clock then id same there the same. would probably be best to go with the 1 that is not overclocked as its factory requires no tinkering.

E2160 65 nm 1MB L2 1.80 GHz 800 MHz
E2140 65 nm 1MB L2 1.60 GHz 800 MHz

if u overclocks the e2140 to 1.80 it would perform near enough identical to the e2160.

 

[wol-va-rine]

Speedstep is an option you can turn off.

of course you can, but why would you want to...? it would defeat the whole purpose of his question now wouldn't it...? his question was about cpu efficiency, you do understand that, right...? next you'll be telling me that there's an acronym for it and I can turn it on or off in the bios, wow, please enlighten me some more...

 

[rohan23]

of course you can, but why would you want to...? it would defeat the whole purpose of his question now wouldn't it...? his question was about cpu efficiency, you do understand that, right...? next you'll be telling me that there's an acronym for it and I can turn it on or off in the bios, wow, please enlighten me some more...

It depends on his definition of "efficient." It could mean anything from saving power to multitasking.

 

[andrew26]

Depends on the CPUs.

If you compare a 6400+ X2 (the old one) and an overclocked 5400+ X2, although they'll be running at the same clock speed, the 6400+ still has a larger cache.

What CPUs are you talking about, exactly?

just general CPUs

 

[wol-va-rine]

It depends on his definition of "efficient." It could mean anything from saving power to multitasking.

I wasn't replying to the original poster, read what you quoted from my reply to the OCing comment and decide which you think it was that we were talking about...