Go Back   Computer Forums > General Computing > Hardware
Click Here to Login
Join Computer forums Today


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-26-2008, 01:44 PM   #1
BSOD
 
Anti-Flag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 333
Default OC vs stock

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

Anti-Flag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2008, 01:48 PM   #2
In Runtime
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 408
Default Re: OC vs stock

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.
__________________

__________________
[Case = Corsair 400R][CPU = Core i5 3.4Ghz to 4.6Ghz /w Noctua NH-U12P SE2 CPU Cooler][Mobo = Asus P8Z77-V LK][RAM = 16GB DDR3 Patriot Viper 3 1600Mhz RAM][Video Card = PNY GTX 670][SSD = 240GB Force GT][Samsung S27B350 27inch monitor][Running Windows 7 64Bit]
OTSS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2008, 02:01 PM   #3
Fully Optimized
 
wol-va-rine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,104
Default Re: OC vs stock

Quote:
Originally Posted by OTSS View Post
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...
__________________
MY INTARDNET BEAST ■ Antec 300 ■ Q6600 B3, 2.8GHz @ 1.325v ■ MSI X48C Platinum ■ Kingwin XT-1264 ■ Visiontek HD 4870 512MB ■ 4x1GB Transcend aXeRam DDR3-1800 @ 1400MHz ■ WD Raptor (160GB) ■ Western Digital (250GB) ■ Samsung (640GB) ■ Seagate (500GB) ■ WD Caviar Green (1TB) ■ OCZ ProXStream 1kw ■ Sound Blaster X-Fi Platinum ■ JVC HA RX900 ■

ME ■ I am bald and my head is lumpy...fear me ■
wol-va-rine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2008, 06:53 PM   #4
Golden Master
 
worshipme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,603
Default Re: OC vs stock

Quote:
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?
__________________
AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE @ 4.0GHz + TU120E lapped - MSI 770-CD45 AM3 - 2x2GB OCZ DDR3 1333MHz - Sapphire HD 4870 - Samsung Spinpoint 500GB 7200RPM 16MB cache HDD - Tagan TG600-BZ Piperock - (Currently open test bed) - Windows Vista Home Premium 64bit.
worshipme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2008, 07:23 PM   #5
Fully Optimized
 
rohan23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,087
Default Re: OC vs stock

Quote:
Originally Posted by wol-va-rine View Post
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.
__________________
Macook 13.3

2.13Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo-2GB DDR2 800 Mhz-500GB Western Digital Caviar Blue- Nvidia 9400M
rohan23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2008, 11:09 AM   #6
Fully Optimized
 
ssc456's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,279
Send a message via MSN to ssc456
Default Re: OC vs stock

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.
__________________
He who has never failed has never attempted anything worth succeeding at.

Dont Eat Animals, Its Not Good For Them And They Dont Like It!
ssc456 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2008, 11:36 AM   #7
Fully Optimized
 
wol-va-rine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,104
Default Re: OC vs stock

Quote:
Originally Posted by rohan23 View Post
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...

__________________
MY INTARDNET BEAST ■ Antec 300 ■ Q6600 B3, 2.8GHz @ 1.325v ■ MSI X48C Platinum ■ Kingwin XT-1264 ■ Visiontek HD 4870 512MB ■ 4x1GB Transcend aXeRam DDR3-1800 @ 1400MHz ■ WD Raptor (160GB) ■ Western Digital (250GB) ■ Samsung (640GB) ■ Seagate (500GB) ■ WD Caviar Green (1TB) ■ OCZ ProXStream 1kw ■ Sound Blaster X-Fi Platinum ■ JVC HA RX900 ■

ME ■ I am bald and my head is lumpy...fear me ■
wol-va-rine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2008, 03:56 PM   #8
Fully Optimized
 
rohan23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,087
Default Re: OC vs stock

Quote:
Originally Posted by wol-va-rine View Post
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.
__________________
Macook 13.3

2.13Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo-2GB DDR2 800 Mhz-500GB Western Digital Caviar Blue- Nvidia 9400M
rohan23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2008, 03:57 PM   #9
BSOD
 
Anti-Flag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 333
Default Re: OC vs stock

Quote:
Originally Posted by worshipme View Post
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
Anti-Flag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2008, 04:14 PM   #10
Fully Optimized
 
wol-va-rine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,104
Default Re: OC vs stock

Quote:
Originally Posted by rohan23 View Post
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...
__________________

__________________
MY INTARDNET BEAST ■ Antec 300 ■ Q6600 B3, 2.8GHz @ 1.325v ■ MSI X48C Platinum ■ Kingwin XT-1264 ■ Visiontek HD 4870 512MB ■ 4x1GB Transcend aXeRam DDR3-1800 @ 1400MHz ■ WD Raptor (160GB) ■ Western Digital (250GB) ■ Samsung (640GB) ■ Seagate (500GB) ■ WD Caviar Green (1TB) ■ OCZ ProXStream 1kw ■ Sound Blaster X-Fi Platinum ■ JVC HA RX900 ■

ME ■ I am bald and my head is lumpy...fear me ■
wol-va-rine is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0