Overclocking 200Mhz - 300 Mhz Noticeable?

[⚧2CB+Patek Philipe⚧]

Mobo : Asus M5a78l-m lx (supports OC) Cpu: Amd FX 8350 4.0 Ghz. Cooler : Cooler Master Hyper T4
Put it to 4.3 Ghz and I didnt notice anything. How much would i need to OC to notice a difference in this or any other CPU intensive game?

[MarkJohnson]

maculator a écrit :

i5 9600k at 5.2Ghz does the job for me. OC is quite noticable.

You're probably using workshop, which reduces performance, so the OC may help in that manner?

Vimes a écrit :

MarkJohnson a écrit :

I don't see any reason to upgrade. At least not for this game. Other games may benefit, but even then, games are still designed for 4-core/8-thread i7 CPUs. But there have been reports of better gaming results with 8-core/8-thread and 8-core/16-thread CPUs on certain other games, as hyper-threading is limited on what it can do, while 8 full cores can process extra data for a slight performance increase. But this game fully utilizes hyper-threading, so it seems maxed out on only 4-cores/8-threads.

Yes, I still have my 8700k rig as well as my Ryzen 1600.

You are probably right there, in regards to any potential upgrade.
It does surprise me how much they can still add to the base game and yet maintain the minium spec as they do. Whether that still applies with all the DLCs used is another thing.

How much "better" is your 8700k over that of the Ryzen build.?

No difference at all really.

i7-8700k, 32GB RAM, RTX 2070

Ryzen R5 1600, 16GB RAM, and Vega 64.

No overclocks on anything.

On other games, intel/nvidia is a bit faster. Maybe 15% average? Just a guess.

[Vimes]

MarkJohnson a écrit :

maculator a écrit :

i5 9600k at 5.2Ghz does the job for me. OC is quite noticable.

You're probably using workshop, which reduces performance, so the OC may help in that manner?

Vimes a écrit :

You are probably right there, in regards to any potential upgrade.
It does surprise me how much they can still add to the base game and yet maintain the minium spec as they do. Whether that still applies with all the DLCs used is another thing.

How much "better" is your 8700k over that of the Ryzen build.?

No difference at all really.

i7-8700k, 32GB RAM, RTX 2070

Ryzen R5 1600, 16GB RAM, and Vega 64.

No overclocks on anything.

On other games, intel/nvidia is a bit faster. Maybe 15% average? Just a guess.

Perhaps it shouldn't but that disappoints me. With the IPC advantage the Intel should have I would have expected it to have pulled ahead, especially on the larger cities

[maculator]

I'm not extensivly using the workshop. I just noticed that larger cities now run much smoother.
But to be fair going from 4.6GHz turbo wich often throttles because of temps to constant 5.2GHz with sufficient cooling is kind of a huge step.
Also having just 6 cores and no hyperthreading helps with games like cities skylines.
i7 or i9 from the 9th generation would be better but that i5 is really worth the money for cities. No comparison to my old fx 8260.

[MarkJohnson]

maculator a écrit :

I'm not extensivly using the workshop. I just noticed that larger cities now run much smoother.
But to be fair going from 4.6GHz turbo wich often throttles because of temps to constant 5.2GHz with sufficient cooling is kind of a huge step.
Also having just 6 cores and no hyperthreading helps with games like cities skylines.
i7 or i9 from the 9th generation would be better but that i5 is really worth the money for cities. No comparison to my old fx 8260.

What do you mean by smoother? FPS? 24-hour timer?

If it is stuttering or stammering, then it could be mod issues itself. May not be related to performance at all. I work on a lot of different cities to help other users, and some stutter badly, or intermittent. Usually from cosmetic ones and multiple ones at the same time.

[SilvermistInc]

MarkJohnson a écrit :

maculator a écrit :

i5 9600k at 5.2Ghz does the job for me. OC is quite noticable.

You're probably using workshop, which reduces performance, so the OC may help in that manner?

Vimes a écrit :

You are probably right there, in regards to any potential upgrade.
It does surprise me how much they can still add to the base game and yet maintain the minium spec as they do. Whether that still applies with all the DLCs used is another thing.

How much "better" is your 8700k over that of the Ryzen build.?

No difference at all really.

i7-8700k, 32GB RAM, RTX 2070

Ryzen R5 1600, 16GB RAM, and Vega 64.

No overclocks on anything.

On other games, intel/nvidia is a bit faster. Maybe 15% average? Just a guess.

Really? No overclocks on everything? You telling me you bought a high end k class chip and DON'T overclock it? Jeez no wonder you're not seeing a difference, you're not manipulating the parts like how you should.

[MarkJohnson]

SilvermistInc a écrit :

MarkJohnson a écrit :

You're probably using workshop, which reduces performance, so the OC may help in that manner?



No difference at all really.

i7-8700k, 32GB RAM, RTX 2070

Ryzen R5 1600, 16GB RAM, and Vega 64.

No overclocks on anything.

On other games, intel/nvidia is a bit faster. Maybe 15% average? Just a guess.

Really? No overclocks on everything? You telling me you bought a high end k class chip and DON'T overclock it? Jeez no wonder you're not seeing a difference, you're not manipulating the parts like how you should.

I had no real difference in performance, so no need to keep it overclocked. Too many chances for failure, pre-mature wearing, or instability when overclocking. Once in a while I'll do it for some race games, so I can get over 100 fps, for a little smoother gameplay. But most of my games are simulator AI based and need CPU performance. No need for 100 fps to look at mostly a stationary map. It can take a lot of CPU power to process FPS and it can make your games lag, stutter, etc.

If I use mods and other workshop, I'f probably overclock, but I don't care about looks, I care more about functionality. Most good simulators still use DX9 graphics anyway, to keep CPU more free for AI tasks.

[SilvermistInc]

You seriously don't understand overclocking.

[MarkJohnson]

SilvermistInc a écrit :

You seriously don't understand overclocking.

Huh?

FYI, I've been overclocking since the days it could only be done by buying clock crystals kits and soldering them on the board and test and pray it works.

But enlighten me plz.

[SilvermistInc]

MarkJohnson a écrit :

SilvermistInc a écrit :

You seriously don't understand overclocking.

Huh?

FYI, I've been overclocking since the days it could only be done by buying clock crystals kits and soldering them on the board and test and pray it works.

But enlighten me plz.

In order to damage parts via overclocking you need to serious push them past their limits. With Intel I'm talking you need to hit 1.55v to even BEGIN to damage the chip. Assuming that is you can properly cool it. The amount of wear that overclocking runs on a chip in general is minimal. Unless if you plan on running a chip for 10+ years, overclocking will not degrade it any noticable amount. Instability on the other hand is possible. But one of the major points of the overclocking process is to eliminate it. So again, you don't understand overclocking. There are more gains to it than just boosting your FPS and buying an 8700k and not overclocking it is one of the biggest wastes of money you can do when buying Intel.

[MarkJohnson]

SilvermistInc a écrit :

In order to damage parts via overclocking you need to serious push them past their limits. With Intel I'm talking you need to hit 1.55v to even BEGIN to damage the chip.

While true to a certain point, but the #1 killer of CPUs are power supplies. Often providing unstable power. also, MB voltage regulators, even Improper BIOS settings can cause instability as well and fry your cpu. there are a great many things that can fry your system. Overclocking can kill it without even doing anything but increasing the speed. It's a gamble I don't do it unless needed. Or stability test to make sure my components are up to snuff so I have full refund windows to get my money back.

The amount of wear that overclocking runs on a chip in general is minimal. Unless if you plan on running a chip for 10+ years, overclocking will not degrade it any noticable amount.

True, I still have my C2Q 8400 system that my nephew uses. It is overvolted past limits and it can run over 100c! Average is 80C under normal gaming mode. I spent a small fortune on it with PCP&C power supply (before 80 plus), run the memory and NB at 1,200MHz DDR2. I was using it for Folding 24/7 for the first 5 years. I can't believe it still works to this day.

Instability on the other hand is possible. But one of the major points of the overclocking process is to eliminate it.

You can't always eliminate it, I run countless stress test on systems and they pass 100% @ 24hours. Then fire up my game and it crashes immediately. Different programs stress the system differently. The instibilty is still there and it is degrading the CPU. It just takes lomger to kill it, or you run the right app and it overloads it and kills or, or more likely, it just starts randomly crashing for no apparent reason. Then you remove the OC for a test, then it won't boot at all as it won't run without the OC settings anymore.

So again, you don't understand overclocking. There are more gains to it than just boosting your FPS and buying an 8700k and not overclocking it is one of the biggest wastes of money you can do when buying Intel.

Wastes? You wouldn't pay an extra 15ish% extra for 300 more megahertz and the option of overclocking if needed? Not to mention the 8700k retains more of its resale value when you sell it on your next upgrade.

I think you just take advantage of OC for the sake of OC. Why would you need more on a 6-core 8700k when games only use 4 cores, and all other apps use 1. It's just a gamble I don't like to take. Plus I see too many people getting suggestions to do this and fry their system. I just got a i5-7400 system from my cousin. It died 3-days from his son trying to OC it, thinking he knew what he was doing. Luckily he got a full refund this time and got to keep the PC. Now he can reuse his RAM, 1060 3GB, SSD, HDD on his new system I will build for him this time, so it's done right.

[SilvermistInc]

MarkJohnson a écrit :

SilvermistInc a écrit :

In order to damage parts via overclocking you need to serious push them past their limits. With Intel I'm talking you need to hit 1.55v to even BEGIN to damage the chip.

While true to a certain point, but the #1 killer of CPUs are power supplies. Often providing unstable power. also, MB voltage regulators, even Improper BIOS settings can cause instability as well and fry your cpu. there are a great many things that can fry your system. Overclocking can kill it without even doing anything but increasing the speed. It's a gamble I don't do it unless needed. Or stability test to make sure my components are up to snuff so I have full refund windows to get my money back.

The amount of wear that overclocking runs on a chip in general is minimal. Unless if you plan on running a chip for 10+ years, overclocking will not degrade it any noticable amount.

True, I still have my C2Q 8400 system that my nephew uses. It is overvolted past limits and it can run over 100c! Average is 80C under normal gaming mode. I spent a small fortune on it with PCP&C power supply (before 80 plus), run the memory and NB at 1,200MHz DDR2. I was using it for Folding 24/7 for the first 5 years. I can't believe it still works to this day.

Instability on the other hand is possible. But one of the major points of the overclocking process is to eliminate it.

You can't always eliminate it, I run countless stress test on systems and they pass 100% @ 24hours. Then fire up my game and it crashes immediately. Different programs stress the system differently. The instibilty is still there and it is degrading the CPU. It just takes lomger to kill it, or you run the right app and it overloads it and kills or, or more likely, it just starts randomly crashing for no apparent reason. Then you remove the OC for a test, then it won't boot at all as it won't run without the OC settings anymore.

So again, you don't understand overclocking. There are more gains to it than just boosting your FPS and buying an 8700k and not overclocking it is one of the biggest wastes of money you can do when buying Intel.

Wastes? You wouldn't pay an extra 15ish% extra for 300 more megahertz and the option of overclocking if needed? Not to mention the 8700k retains more of its resale value when you sell it on your next upgrade.

I think you just take advantage of OC for the sake of OC. Why would you need more on a 6-core 8700k when games only use 4 cores, and all other apps use 1. It's just a gamble I don't like to take. Plus I see too many people getting suggestions to do this and fry their system. I just got a i5-7400 system from my cousin. It died 3-days from his son trying to OC it, thinking he knew what he was doing. Luckily he got a full refund this time and got to keep the PC. Now he can reuse his RAM, 1060 3GB, SSD, HDD on his new system I will build for him this time, so it's done right.

All of your points are easily neglected by doing proper research when selecting your parts.

[MarkJohnson]

SilvermistInc a écrit :

MarkJohnson a écrit :

While true to a certain point, but the #1 killer of CPUs are power supplies. Often providing unstable power. also, MB voltage regulators, even Improper BIOS settings can cause instability as well and fry your cpu. there are a great many things that can fry your system. Overclocking can kill it without even doing anything but increasing the speed. It's a gamble I don't do it unless needed. Or stability test to make sure my components are up to snuff so I have full refund windows to get my money back.



True, I still have my C2Q 8400 system that my nephew uses. It is overvolted past limits and it can run over 100c! Average is 80C under normal gaming mode. I spent a small fortune on it with PCP&C power supply (before 80 plus), run the memory and NB at 1,200MHz DDR2. I was using it for Folding 24/7 for the first 5 years. I can't believe it still works to this day.



You can't always eliminate it, I run countless stress test on systems and they pass 100% @ 24hours. Then fire up my game and it crashes immediately. Different programs stress the system differently. The instibilty is still there and it is degrading the CPU. It just takes lomger to kill it, or you run the right app and it overloads it and kills or, or more likely, it just starts randomly crashing for no apparent reason. Then you remove the OC for a test, then it won't boot at all as it won't run without the OC settings anymore.



Wastes? You wouldn't pay an extra 15ish% extra for 300 more megahertz and the option of overclocking if needed? Not to mention the 8700k retains more of its resale value when you sell it on your next upgrade.

I think you just take advantage of OC for the sake of OC. Why would you need more on a 6-core 8700k when games only use 4 cores, and all other apps use 1. It's just a gamble I don't like to take. Plus I see too many people getting suggestions to do this and fry their system. I just got a i5-7400 system from my cousin. It died 3-days from his son trying to OC it, thinking he knew what he was doing. Luckily he got a full refund this time and got to keep the PC. Now he can reuse his RAM, 1060 3GB, SSD, HDD on his new system I will build for him this time, so it's done right.

All of your points are easily neglected by doing proper research when selecting your parts.

You keep oversimplifying things.

All of your points were easily NEGATED, but you seemed to ignore them and not respond to them.

Well, this is getting OT and were just repeating ourselves.

Peace out.

[Vimes]

^^^^ it is down to personal opinions and desires etc, in terms of overclocking. As long as we are aware of its potential, good and potentially bad, then it is down to the individual what they do :)

I personally have had my i7 6700k overclocked to 4.7Ghz across all the cores since the time that I bought is, when Skylake first came out.
It only requires a very small offset voltage to do that and the cooler that I bought provides more than adequate cooling.
I would no more run that CPU as std as I would wish to play CS vanilla.
But that reflects my choice and Mark has his very valid reasons, only needs to be valid for himself, for choosing not to overclock and to generally play this game without game altering mods.

When I loaded Marks mega city I was surprised, pleasantly, at how well that is ran compared to my own very much heavily mod focused one, with around 150k less population.

Again that is choice, this time my choice coming to term with consequences.

My overclock seemed to make little difference in the night and day cycle when running Mark's city but did seem to help when playing my heavily modded one.

You are both "right" in how you choose to run your systems, you just come at them from different perspectives.

[Termite]

Like @Vimes I have overclocked my i7 6700K from the day I got it. I can get 4.6 without increasing voltage beyond that I need to add more voltage which I would prefer not to do. When overclocking I will go as far as the system can go without increase in voltage then take it back one step lower. So I mostly run my current system at 4.5.

When playing other games the overclock makes a big difference.

However, with Cities Skylines I have tried playing with and without overclocking and to be honest found little to no difference even on a heavily modded game. RAM and pagefile (size and location) seem to have the biggest effect. I suspect more VRAM might increase performance

200-300mhz CPU increase will have almost no effect on this games performance.

Almost anything can fry a system. I had an ASROCK MB that lost access to half the system RAM after a system crash caused by installing a well known and respected HDD cloning/partition software app.