A way to overclock an Intel Cpu without the risk.

Lordbob75 said:

Dogz said:

Yes I know that everyone say you need to add voltage to a cpu to overclock it. If you are worried about burning up CPU there is another way. For those who use any ix processor simply move up the Base clock or bclock. For those who still have a LGA 775 processor just turn up the Front Side Bus or FSB.

No, you do not always have to turn up voltage.
Yes, this method will still create heat and carries an inherent risk.
Overclocking consists of changing 3 things: Front side bus (FSB), clock multiplier (your "base clock"), and CPU Voltage. The ideal overclock will have the FSB and clock as high as possible, with the voltage as low as possible.
Just changing any 1 of those 3 things can cause instability and a heat increase (or decrease).
Your idea of overclocking by just increasing the clock is completely valid, but this DOES NOT MAKE IT ANY SAFER!
It can still break the CPU, cause instability, or overheating, etc.

Dogz said:

The thing is my mobo has something called C.P.R (CPU.Parameter.Recall) so it can actually reset the CPU in an event of failure. you can read more about it here. ASUSTeK Computer Inc. -Support- FAQ FAQ What is the new ASUS C.P.R function?

This won't help you if you actually damage it.

~Lordbob

Overclocking the CPU by frequency alone isn't nearly as unsafe as with increasing the voltage. If you look at the formula P = C*F*V^2 where P = Power, C = Capacitance, F = Frequency and V = Voltage. You can see power increases with the square of voltage, yet only linearly with frequency.

Ken summed it up pretty well. There's still a risk, but a small overclock with no voltage increase won't yield as big of a result, but less risk than a larger overclock with a voltage increase.

Everlong said:

Lordbob75 said:

Dogz said:

Yes I know that everyone say you need to add voltage to a cpu to overclock it. If you are worried about burning up CPU there is another way. For those who use any ix processor simply move up the Base clock or bclock. For those who still have a LGA 775 processor just turn up the Front Side Bus or FSB.

No, you do not always have to turn up voltage.
Yes, this method will still create heat and carries an inherent risk.
Overclocking consists of changing 3 things: Front side bus (FSB), clock multiplier (your "base clock"), and CPU Voltage. The ideal overclock will have the FSB and clock as high as possible, with the voltage as low as possible.
Just changing any 1 of those 3 things can cause instability and a heat increase (or decrease).
Your idea of overclocking by just increasing the clock is completely valid, but this DOES NOT MAKE IT ANY SAFER!
It can still break the CPU, cause instability, or overheating, etc.

Dogz said:

The thing is my mobo has something called C.P.R (CPU.Parameter.Recall) so it can actually reset the CPU in an event of failure. you can read more about it here. ASUSTeK Computer Inc. -Support- FAQ FAQ What is the new ASUS C.P.R function?

This won't help you if you actually damage it.

~Lordbob

Overclocking the CPU by frequency alone isn't nearly as unsafe as with increasing the voltage. If you look at the formula P = C*F*V^2 where P = Power, C = Capacitance, F = Frequency and V = Voltage. You can see power increases with the square of voltage, yet only linearly with frequency.

Ken summed it up pretty well. There's still a risk, but a small overclock with no voltage increase won't yield as big of a result, but less risk than a larger overclock with a voltage increase.

I didn't want to make it seem "safer" as it can still destroy your hardware.
I see your point though (and am taking note of that formula). Thanks.

~Lordbob

I do OCing somewhat different that some do I think.
Some Overclockers like to fine the Max it will run at and leave it there. And there is nothing wrong with this, as we all have our own methods or opinions.

When I build a new machine, I love pushing it to its limit to see what its capable of as well.
Once I find that Maxium OC thats stable, I'll run all kinds of benchmarks. I do enjoy it :)

but, once I am done playing around, and I know what the rig is capable of, then its time to find a nice 24/7 OC.

What I refer to as the 'Sweet Spot" is the point where the trade off of power and heat VS performance output is worth it.

Im not sure how to explain this properly, but as most OCer's know, once you hit a certain point, you'll end up putting much more energy into the system, than you get back.
IMO, sometimes its simply not worth the trade off for 24/7 use, even though the Hardware is quite capable.

Well I don't run mine at the max it can be run either. Like right now my 9550's sat at 3.4 happily, which has some performance increase in some CPU intensive games, such as GTA.

Dogz said:

Yes I know that everyone say you need to add voltage to a cpu to overclock it.

I would NOT say this. IN fact, my box is an Intel, it's overclocked and I didn't touch voltage at all.

Almost every electronic component has at least some headroom, meaning that it can be pushed outside it's comfort zone a little. In most cases, that little push isn't meant to be for very long.

Some CPU's are meant to be OC'd - the AMD Black Edition series comes to mind. But even AMD says not to OC a BE chip or you'll void your warranty. Weird, yes, I know.

You can destroy a CPU by increasing the FSB too much, just as you can kill it with excess voltage. You can also kill your NorthBridge, your RAM... take your pick.

The bottom line I usually tell people is don't OC anything you can't afford to replace. Especially if you don't have a good idea of what you're doing. It's simple math really:

User + careless overclock = $$$

My $0.02

my 920 and 930 processors both wont really do much with just a BLCK increase...

Using the gigabyte OC software I ran 3.53ghz continuously while staying below 70 degrees