Jump to content

Overclocking i7 2600k (PSU?)


oZ.

Recommended Posts

rrv4oo.png

Building my 1st Gaming Rig Thread

ok so first of all thanks to those who reply to the thread above. :wub:

- Now back to PSU watts issue, 650watt OR 750Watt :frusty:

- I'm planning to overclock me 2600k to:

Overclocked CPU speed (4000 MHz)

Overclocked Vcore (V1.35)

(Overclocked CPU Wattage: 121)

- addition to some Overclocking to my already OC'd GTX 560 Ti (not sure yet but 100% sure that ill get GTX 660,670 or GTX 760, 770 on the future) :unsure:

- So... Corsair HX 650 or HX 750? because i'm building this not for current games i planning to keep this pc for 2 - 3 years yet having the advantage to upgrade my graphics card and other parts without having to spend another ~$200 for a PSU. B)

HX 650 = $130 ; HX 750 = $160

- I used http://extreme.outervision.com/PSUEngine to calculate, ATM i use only ~500 watts (including the 4ghz CPU overclocking @ v1.35) but like i said i do want to upgrade to one of the high end card later.

- Do i really need that extra 100watts to be on the safe side? When everything (CPU, GPU etc) is @ load ?

comments please :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 22
  • Views 4.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
T4C Fantasy

youll want an 800+psu trust me youll need it for future cards and in case you wanna run dual cards which you should anyways, its more beast that way

Link to comment
Share on other sites

youll want an 800+psu trust me youll need it for future cards and in case you wanna run dual cards which you should anyways, its more beast that way

nah im not gana dual any cards, that cost too much power. i would if electricity pricing haven't got up....

thanks for reply =)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bizarre™

It's prudent not to increase CPU voltage unless your PC gets unstable. High CPU voltage destroys the CPU faster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's prudent not to increase CPU voltage unless your PC gets unstable. High CPU voltage destroys the CPU faster.

hmmm so leave voltage at auto? unless my pc shuts down or crashes? & how about my PSU 650 or 750?

thanks for reply

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bizarre™

@oZ.:

Leave it at Auto until you reach the maximum stable OC you can get.

Beyond that, you'll have to experiment. It's all trial and error.

You can compute how much power your PSU will need here: Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leaving the CPU voltage on Auto (in BIOS) in a overclock situation will flood the CPU. You will find that (most) motherboards increase the voltage a little too much when on Auto (just to make sure everything is stable). You (probably) could decrease it a little - how much? That's for you to experiment - you know, decrease it a notch, run stress software a few hours, no errors, another notch etc. You will have to research your particular mobo though.

My opinion is that you are safe with that PSU. However, if in 2 years you decide to buy the latest dual-GPU card from AMD/Nvidia (like the GTX 590/HD 6990 now) you might find your PSU does not have enough juice.

Other then that, a question I ask many people that overclock their (already powerful) CPU: WHY? Do you need that overclock for what? Gaming? Not necessary. If you're not in the audio/video production, rendering and stuff like that, that 2600K is just TOO FAST for every other stuff. You think you'll gain framerates? Yeah, maybe you will gain a FPS or two, but meh, it's not worth the effort.

And the system is very good, probably exactly what I would buy if I had 800-ish Euros right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

And don't forget turbo boost. ^^ :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bizarre™

@toyo:

Q: Why do we want to OC?

A: Because we can. It's our PC, so it's our responsibility.

Although, the same goes if we make a blunder.

We can blame no one but ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bizarre™

@oZ.:

It's not really recommended to use Turbo Boost while doing manual OC. It would shutdown all your efforts to hell.

Also, there's something that people are concerned about Turbo Boost: Link

DKT27 could probably shed some light on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

And don't forget turbo boost. ^^ :)

hm if i OC'd my cpu will turbo boost still works? =\

Yup it will work. But as per the config of i7 2600k, if a software (fully) uses only one core, the speed of that particular core can take you to 3.8Ghz (rest cores will stay at 3.4Ghz or 1.5Ghz if you have speedstep [CPU power saving] on). Keep on minus 0.1Ghz on each more core that software is using. If it uses 4 cores, then it will turbo boost till 3.5GHz. 1 core being used the most = 100 bus speed into 38 ratio = 3.8Ghz. 4 cores being used the most = 100 bus speed into 35 ratio = 3.5Ghz. Hope you understand what I'm saying.

Now depending on how much more speed you want and how much will be the CPU's temp, choose your overclocking limit. ;)

EDIT: About the Wiki link Biz has posted, most of the day to day software still use 1 core at the max, hence turbo boost is useful to me. But games may use all the cores, so you decide.

Also, you can disable Turbo boost and Speedstep via BIOS easily ;) (don't need to disable speedstep though, it's a power saver when CPU is idle).

The reason turbo boost is introduced is that people don't need to manually overclock. But it depends on personal needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And don't forget turbo boost. ^^ :)

hm if i OC'd my cpu will turbo boost still works? =\

Yup it will work. But as per the config of i7 2600k, if a software (fully) uses only one core, the speed of that particular core can take you to 3.8Ghz (rest cores will stay at 3.4Ghz or 1.5Ghz if you have speedstep [CPU power saving] on). Keep on minus 0.1Ghz on each more core that software is using. If it uses 4 cores, then it will turbo boost till 3.5GHz. 1 core being used the most = 100 bus speed into 38 ratio = 3.8Ghz. 4 cores being used the most = 100 bus speed into 35 ratio = 3.5Ghz. Hope you understand what I'm saying.

Now depending on how much more speed you want and how much will be the CPU's temp, choose your overclocking limit. ;)

EDIT: About the Wiki link Biz has posted, most of the day to day software still use 1 core at the max, hence turbo boost is useful to me. But games may use all the cores, so you decide.

Also, you can disable Turbo boost and Speedstep via BIOS easily ;) (don't need to disable speedstep though, it's a power saver when CPU is idle).

The reason turbo boost is introduced is that people don't need to manually overclock. But it depends on personal needs.

:P I do understand what you are talking about apparently (becoming a geek :o [no offense it's a good thing] )

so if i manual OC my PC to #Ghz, i should DISable turbo boost?

Other then that, a question I ask many people that overclock their (already powerful) CPU: WHY? Do you need that overclock for what? Gaming? Not necessary. If you're not in the audio/video production, rendering and stuff like that, that 2600K is just TOO FAST for every other stuff. You think you'll gain framerates? Yeah, maybe you will gain a FPS or two, but meh, it's not worth the effort.

And the system is very good, probably exactly what I would buy if I had 800-ish Euros right now.

- From the benchmarks and reviews of graphics cards I have read (system been used to test out serveral cards) with different Systems (CPUs too) the better the CPU seems to have higher FPS. I don't have any reviews in front of me to show you but this been stuck in my head for a while now because i do shit tons of research on my GTX 560 Ti (vs ATI's)

- The system? you mean my build? or

thanks nsaners :wub:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the current games are highly GPU dependant especially when played at bigger resolutions. I will assume you have a 1080p monitor, since this is most usually nowadays. So if you take a video card, let's say your 560 Ti, and put it in a few (powerful enough) PCs and benchmark some games, you will find out that the differences are just a few frames, if any. Your CPU is a monster. Not only he is build on a small 32 nm process, it's also working at a high frequency with the possibility of turbo boosting even higher when needed.

Just test this... overclock your CPU, then benchmark whatever games you play vs the non-overclocked system. Let us know if you find the gain worth it.

System, PC, build, machine etc... :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

That's not correct, though both CPU and GPU speeds matter to avoid bottleneck. Better CPU doesn't truly mean higher FPS. Most, by most I really mean most, new games are more or less about 80% graphics card dependent (on the display processing side), I haven't looked into any documentations but I've played enough games on my computer to say that. Ofc with exceptions of Need For Speed Shift 2 where they have said they are going to release a patch that will do AA in CPU instead of GPU, but still, don't you think i7 2600K is too much of a monster to need any overclocking? :P

I do suggest that you don't overclock it, but if you do, keeping turbo on or off should depend on your personal preference and the stability of the CPU, to be on the safer side, best if disabled. But turbo sorta automatically unlocks the CPU ratio, so I like it. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not correct, though both CPU and GPU speeds matter to avoid bottleneck. Better CPU doesn't truly mean higher FPS. Most, by most I really mean most, new games are more or less about 80% graphics card dependent (on the display processing side), I haven't looked into any documentations but I've played enough games on my computer to say that. Ofc with exceptions of Need For Speed Shift 2 where they have said they are going to release a patch that will do AA in CPU instead of GPU, but still, don't you think i7 2600K is too much of a monster to need any overclocking? :P

I do suggest that you don't overclock it, but if you do, keeping turbo on or off should depend on your personal preference and the stability of the CPU, to be on the safer side, best if disabled. But turbo sorta automatically unlocks the CPU ratio, so I like it. :D

Hope all EA's future games would do AA in CPU instead of GPU (battlefield 3?!?!?!) so i don have to upgarde my card to gtx 660 or 670 =\.

- ya i probably won't Overclock it YET but im keeping this for 2 - 3 years (exceptional of graphics card) for newer games overclocking is a need =P.

just like when 1st gen i7 came out ppl would probably say the same thing and now it's not the case anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

I doubt that. I also doubt that overclocking the i7 2600 is going to do anything on the gaming side. As toyo says, I guess it wont give more than 1-2FPS.

I didn't know GTX 560 is one of the high ranking graphics card.

Seriously, i7 2600k seems so powerful that I doubt that it will get old after 2-3 years. Okay maybe 3, but even then would be good enough in this fast paced CPU market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt that. I also doubt that overclocking the i7 2600 is going to do anything on the gaming side. As toyo says, I guess it wont give more than 1-2FPS.

I didn't know GTX 560 is one of the high ranking graphics card.

Seriously, i7 2600k seems so powerful that I doubt that it will get old after 2-3 years. Okay maybe 3, but even then would be good enough in this fast paced CPU market.

I mean gtx #70, #80 series =\

- Ivy bridge comes out i7 2600k won't be such a monster anymore.

- in 2 years even greater CPU of the same kind will be out. Since integrated graphics CPU is Brand new, in 2 years this will be pretty slow vs those new ones. with z68 intel chipset, u can use both CPu's gpu & discrete gpu = pwnage.

- imagine new, new , new integrated gpu in 2 years =3!

- but i wont be upgrading my whole gaming rig until 2 - 3 years after i got mine running flawlessly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

Games are not made by only keeping monster computers in mind, with some exceptions ofc. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, now most new games are badly-executed console ports that require lots of resources. Even if the games would have been designed with the PC in mind, of course the devs would add stuff that would make you buy the latest CPU/GPU etc., it's the way the market is functioning. But there are nice games like the Telltale remakes that can be played on modest PCs, although these are the exceptions.

The 2600K only suffers from having "only" 4 cores. The upper tier CPUs tend to survive much longer. Let's take the example of the 45 nm Core 2 Quad 9650. Launch date Q3 2008, says Intel. Almost 3 years gone, and this is still a damn powerful CPU, 12 MB cache and 3 GHz - don't underestimate it. Overclock this puppy to 4 GHz and you have a beast. Newegg sells this at 340 USD...

So, maybe 2 1/2 years is not enough? Let's go back in time some more, and take a look at the 65 nm Q6600, the first affordable quad, going strong even at the default speed of 2.4 GHz. Launched in Q1 2007, 4 years ago. This CPU goes to 3 GHz as easy as pie, and there's no modern game requiring more than a 3 GHz quad.

So I hope you see where I'm coming from. The higher-end a CPU is, the longer its life will be. Your CPU is not the best (those are sold at 999$ price tag), but is nonetheless very, very good. So you can chill a few years, if the tech world evolves in the same rhythm.

Same is true for the video cards. Buy a good one now, chill the next years. Hey, I can play any game at 1080p, medium/high/max settings on my dual core, HD 4850 PC. And when I play at medium settings, is because I like to run games at 60 fps-ish, if possible. That 560 of yours is an amazing piece of tech from Nvidia which I think will last you at least 2 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, now most new games are badly-executed console ports that require lots of resources. Even if the games would have been designed with the PC in mind, of course the devs would add stuff that would make you buy the latest CPU/GPU etc., it's the way the market is functioning. But there are nice games like the Telltale remakes that can be played on modest PCs, although these are the exceptions.

The 2600K only suffers from having "only" 4 cores. The upper tier CPUs tend to survive much longer. Let's take the example of the 45 nm Core 2 Quad 9650. Launch date Q3 2008, says Intel. Almost 3 years gone, and this is still a damn powerful CPU, 12 MB cache and 3 GHz - don't underestimate it. Overclock this puppy to 4 GHz and you have a beast. Newegg sells this at 340 USD...

So, maybe 2 1/2 years is not enough? Let's go back in time some more, and take a look at the 65 nm Q6600, the first affordable quad, going strong even at the default speed of 2.4 GHz. Launched in Q1 2007, 4 years ago. This CPU goes to 3 GHz as easy as pie, and there's no modern game requiring more than a 3 GHz quad.

So I hope you see where I'm coming from. The higher-end a CPU is, the longer its life will be. Your CPU is not the best (those are sold at 999$ price tag), but is nonetheless very, very good. So you can chill a few years, if the tech world evolves in the same rhythm.

Same is true for the video cards. Buy a good one now, chill the next years. Hey, I can play any game at 1080p, medium/high/max settings on my dual core, HD 4850 PC. And when I play at medium settings, is because I like to run games at 60 fps-ish, if possible. That 560 of yours is an amazing piece of tech from Nvidia which I think will last you at least 2 years.

you are very unbiased with your opinions i might have to add u to friends just for that :P.

ya i got a friend who has a Q6600, and he can play most games even with a crappy GT 220 and a 3 year never maintenance or format XP SP3.

i just need to get the GTX #70 series after this 560 ti. i was thinking about spending extra $100 for 570 but i saw the consumption of power and having the 560 ti to overclocked to 1ghz would be nearly the same performance as the gtx 570 having less usage on power. so i was like MEH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think either power supply will do the trick and have lots of headroom. Those power supplies go well beyond their rated specs if I am not mistaken. It is nice to buy the larger sized one just for piece of mind though.

I just overclocked my 2600k to 5.1ghz. Running strong so far. Good luck with yours. =)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think either power supply will do the trick and have lots of headroom. Those power supplies go well beyond their rated specs if I am not mistaken. It is nice to buy the larger sized one just for piece of mind though.

I just overclocked my 2600k to 5.1ghz. Running strong so far. Good luck with yours. =)

ya i probably go 750watts just incase if i go crazy in 1 - 2 years and get GTX #70 series superclocked and overclock it even more, which im donig that to my gtx 560 ti SOC =P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...