CPU Overclocking Unrealistic

[Stocky]

Has anyone else picked up on the fact that the CPU overclocking is backwards and unrealistic temperature wise?

Nearly every chip in the game can only be increased by 200-400Mhz before the temperatures are unbearable. Also on top of that, voltage increases make no difference to the temperature what so ever, it is the clock speeds that is drastically affecting the temperature instead, where as when your doing overclocking in reality, the clock speed only has a very minimal affect on the chips temperature and in fact, the voltage is what plays the biggest part on temperatures.

For example, a 6700k on a kraken AIO triple fan will idle at 35-40c and max out at 60-65c, the second you increase the clock speed by 100mhz your up at 80-85c, then every 100mhz after that is 3-5c again, so with a small increase of 300-400mhz your already at 90-93c and there is not a thing you can do about it.

I propose that they make the clock speed increases much more realistic and have the voltage determine the temperature of the chip more so then the clock speed. They also need a much more linear temperature increase when overclocking so your not going from 3.8Ghz at 60c max for example to 3.9Ghz and 85c max, it does not happen like that, you generally see a 2-3c difference over 100mhz and then the temperature curve gets steeper and steeper as you dig into the higher clock speeds

[choggy2840]

As much as I love this game I have to agree

[blitza700]

i'm sorry ot be captin obvious here but it is only a game not every thing is going to be exact but a but as close to realistic as possible should be the what they aim for but they could always keep how they have it but put it under a simple difficulty and make an advaced difficulty for a more realistic game play

[Tikigod]

Could definitely do with being more accurate in this regard.

[Stocky]

Okay good, i was making sure i wasn't missing something completely obvious in the game. Because right now, voltage means nothing, it helps you keep a stable overclock but just after a couple hundred mhz the temperature from the core clock start to outweigh the necessity of changing core voltage

[Stocky]

Originally posted by blitza700:

i'm sorry ot be captin obvious here but it is only a game not every thing is going to be exact but a but as close to realistic as possible should be the what they aim for but they could always keep how they have it but put it under a simple difficulty and make an advaced difficulty for a more realistic game play

Thats all well in good, alot of the time it is to hard to make things the same due to gameplay issues or other various things but this game literally has the tools available right now to it, to do it properly

[Stocky]

Maybe with custom loops we will see more adjustment?

[🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊]

So then what about the 6600K in-game I was able to overclock +650 mhz. Or the 7700K I could overclock +500 mhz, or some of the I5's I've been able to overclock +700 mhz in-game.

The problem is you're trying to overclock the top-binned parts with tons of cores. Those chips don't overclock any further than a couple hundred mhz in real life either.

[Tikigod]

Originally posted by Impending Rentacle Tape:

So then what about the 6600K in-game I was able to overclock +650 mhz. Or the 7700K I could overclock +500 mhz, or some of the I5's I've been able to overclock +700 mhz in-game.

The problem is you're trying to overclock the top-binned parts with tons of cores. Those chips don't overclock any further than a couple hundred mhz in real life either.

That doesn't really touch on the point of the OP.

When overclocking, the #1 factor for what clockspeeds can actually be established is voltage.

More voltage means more power available for the CPU to achieve high clock speeds, but as voltage increases, so does heat. So heat management becomes a greater concern, making a lot of overclocking about voltage fine tuning, seeing what your particular CPU is able to push out at as low a voltage as possibe.

In this game voltage is treated as some minor adjustment factor, and overclocking is just about pushing clockspeed as high as the simulated silicon allows, and the higher the clockspeed the higher temperatures (drastically) becomes even if voltage remains pretty much constant throughout the testing.

Which is almost a complete opposite to actual overclocking.


Edit: And that is putting aside the completely different experience that is Ryzen CPU overclocking and all the additional factors that comes into the mix with that.

If we were to delve into more accurate Ryzen Overclocking, then we'd be looking at having to balance CPU voltage against heat management alongside SOC voltages to support higher RAM clock speeds but having to balance outright RAM clockspeed against maintaining lower latency figures. All to achieve optimal performance even if at technically lower core clock speed. (Plus ensuring the RAM used is using the proper Samsung B-die that offer optimal performance for Ryzens need)

So for example:

System 1

Balance between core clock/voltage, RAM clock speed and latency.

Ryzen 2700x at 1.3v which allows it to be overclocked to achieve consistent 4.1ghz clocks across all cores under load, with SOC voltages around 1.32 to allow DDR4 RAM (B-die) to achieve stable clocks at 3400/1700Mhz and latency of 14/16/16/32 or perhaps even lower depending on the quality of the RAM. (Though to get that kind of quality RAM at the moment costs more than most mid to high end CPUs)

System 2

Similar to System 1 but higher RAM clock speed at the cost of latency.

Ryzen 2700x at 1.3v which allows it to be overclocked to achieve consistent 4.1ghz clocks across all cores under load, with SOC voltages around 1.32 to allow DDR4 RAM (B-die) to achieve stable clocks at 3600/1800Mhz and latency of 16/18/18/36.

System 3

The 'Intel approach'. Just ramp up the voltages and clockspeed and brute force performance. All that matters with this mentality is clock speed and controlling voltage/thermals.

Ryzen 2700x at 1.4v which allows it to be overclocked to achieve consistent 4.25ghz clocks across all cores under load, but with SOC voltages around 1.35 allowing DDR4 RAM (E-die) to only achieve stable clocks at 3200/1600Mhz and latency of around 18/24/24/38.

Comparison

Under strict CPU benchmarking and real CPU driven usage (like CPU loaded rendering), you're likely to find System 1 performs significantly faster than system 3 despite the 150Mhz lower clock applied applied to each core, and slightly but still noticably better than system 2 due to how the Ryzen architecture works and the additional factors that directly impact CPU performance.


Admittedly I've not delved fully into OC'ing Ryzen CPUs in this game yet. But I suspect it's skipping over those nuances based on how Intel CPU OC'ing has been in-game from my experience so far.

[Stocky]

Originally posted by Tikigod:

Originally posted by Impending Rentacle Tape:

So then what about the 6600K in-game I was able to overclock +650 mhz. Or the 7700K I could overclock +500 mhz, or some of the I5's I've been able to overclock +700 mhz in-game.

The problem is you're trying to overclock the top-binned parts with tons of cores. Those chips don't overclock any further than a couple hundred mhz in real life either.

That doesn't really touch on the point of the OP.

When overclocking, the #1 factor for what clockspeeds can actually be established is voltage.

More voltage means more power available for the CPU to achieve high clock speeds, but as voltage increases, so does heat. So heat management becomes a greater concern, making a lot of overclocking about voltage fine tuning, seeing what your particular CPU is able to push out at as low a voltage as possibe.

In this game voltage is treated as some minor adjustment factor, and overclocking is just about pushing clockspeed as high as the simulated silicon allows, and the higher the clockspeed the higher temperatures (drastically) becomes even if voltage remains pretty much constant throughout the testing.

Which is almost a complete opposite to actual overclocking.


Edit: And that is putting aside the completely different experience that is Ryzen CPU overclocking and all the additional factors that comes into the mix with that.

If we were to delve into more accurate Ryzen Overclocking, then we'd be looking at having to balance CPU voltage against heat management alongside SOC voltages to support higher RAM clock speeds but having to balance outright RAM clockspeed against maintaining lower latency figures. All to achieve optimal performance even if at technically lower core clock speed. (Plus ensuring the RAM used is using the proper Samsung B-die that offer optimal performance for Ryzens need)

So for example:

System 1

Balance between core clock/voltage, RAM clock speed and latency.

Ryzen 2700x at 1.3v which allows it to be overclocked to achieve consistent 4.1ghz clocks across all cores under load, with SOC voltages around 1.32 to allow DDR4 RAM (B-die) to achieve stable clocks at 3400/1700Mhz and latency of 14/16/16/32 or perhaps even lower depending on the quality of the RAM. (Though to get that kind of quality RAM at the moment costs more than most mid to high end CPUs)

System 2

Similar to System 1 but higher RAM clock speed at the cost of latency.

Ryzen 2700x at 1.3v which allows it to be overclocked to achieve consistent 4.1ghz clocks across all cores under load, with SOC voltages around 1.32 to allow DDR4 RAM (B-die) to achieve stable clocks at 3600/1800Mhz and latency of 16/18/18/36.

System 3

The 'Intel approach'. Just ramp up the voltages and clockspeed and brute force performance. All that matters with this mentality is clock speed and controlling voltage/thermals.

Ryzen 2700x at 1.4v which allows it to be overclocked to achieve consistent 4.25ghz clocks across all cores under load, but with SOC voltages around 1.35 allowing DDR4 RAM (E-die) to only achieve stable clocks at 3200/1600Mhz and latency of around 18/24/24/38.

Comparison

Under strict CPU benchmarking and real CPU driven usage (like CPU loaded rendering), you're likely to find System 1 performs significantly faster than system 3 despite the 150Mhz lower clock applied applied to each core, and slightly but still noticably better than system 2 due to how the Ryzen architecture works and the additional factors that directly impact CPU performance.


Admittedly I've not delved fully into OC'ing Ryzen CPUs in this game yet. But I suspect it's skipping over those nuances based on how Intel CPU OC'ing has been in-game from my experience so far.

Your pretty much spot on, I know there are chips that can be clocked higher then others, but the way they achieve there maximum clock speed is not realistic and on top of this, no one in there right mind would be happy with there chip running at 95c

[Metallos]

Another unrealistic thing is the power draw while making the OCCT test.

In the game the temperature rises quick, the power draw rises very slow. And after the test the temperatures are falling quick but the power draw falls slow.

In reality the power draw rises fast (almost instant) to maximum and the temperatures are changing slower. A computer (the chips) converts electrical power to heat (like a heater), the parts have thermal capacity so it takes a while for temperature changes.

You can't generate heat out of power which doesn't exist!

[Stocky]

Originally posted by Metallos:

Another unrealistic thing is the power draw while making the OCCT test.

In the game the temperature rises quick, the power draw rises very slow. And after the test the temperatures are falling quick but the power draw falls slow.

In reality the power draw rises fast (almost instant) to maximum and the temperatures are changing slower. A computer (the chips) converts electrical power to heat (like a heater), the parts have thermal capacity so it takes a while for temperature changes.

You can't generate heat out of power which doesn't exist!

I do think the slow power draw is intentional tbh so its easier to see when it hits its max power draw, instead of going from 150w to shutting down because it has exceeded your 450w PSU or whatever it is, but your absolutely right, when your exceeding your power supplies rated demand of power your PC will infact shut off straight away most the time and it is up to the experienced person to figure out why

[Wirenfeldt Jr.]

Originally posted by Stocky:

Originally posted by Metallos:

Another unrealistic thing is the power draw while making the OCCT test.

In the game the temperature rises quick, the power draw rises very slow. And after the test the temperatures are falling quick but the power draw falls slow.

In reality the power draw rises fast (almost instant) to maximum and the temperatures are changing slower. A computer (the chips) converts electrical power to heat (like a heater), the parts have thermal capacity so it takes a while for temperature changes.

You can't generate heat out of power which doesn't exist!

I do think the slow power draw is intentional tbh so its easier to see when it hits its max power draw, instead of going from 150w to shutting down because it has exceeded your 450w PSU or whatever it is, but your absolutely right, when your exceeding your power supplies rated demand of power your PC will infact shut off straight away most the time and it is up to the experienced person to figure out why

Power draw really does need to work a lot quicker.. as things are currently, if you have a high power system it is possible to finish the benchmark before hitting peak power, which seems less than ideal.

[Stocky]

Originally posted by Wirenfeldt Jr.:

Originally posted by Stocky:

I do think the slow power draw is intentional tbh so its easier to see when it hits its max power draw, instead of going from 150w to shutting down because it has exceeded your 450w PSU or whatever it is, but your absolutely right, when your exceeding your power supplies rated demand of power your PC will infact shut off straight away most the time and it is up to the experienced person to figure out why

Power draw really does need to work a lot quicker.. as things are currently, if you have a high power system it is possible to finish the benchmark before hitting peak power, which seems less than ideal.

For sure bud, they need to fix it. I am just saying I think they did it intentionally, same reason why I think they intended on doing the overclocking how they did... For whatever reason

[🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊]

Originally posted by Stocky:

Originally posted by Wirenfeldt Jr.:

Power draw really does need to work a lot quicker.. as things are currently, if you have a high power system it is possible to finish the benchmark before hitting peak power, which seems less than ideal.

For sure bud, they need to fix it. I am just saying I think they did it intentionally, same reason why I think they intended on doing the overclocking how they did... For whatever reason

You figured it out. In the end, it's their game. We can make suggestions how we think things should be but.. it's their game and they will code it and release it in their vision. If they want things to be as they are now, then things will be as they are now. What we have today may very well be almost exactly the same for the final product.