Negative effects of overclocking?

Fallen · Post by **Fallen** » 11 Nov 2007, 13:48

I have recently got to the point where ive overclocked my whole system (CPU, FSB, RAM & GPU) to the point where im happy with the speed/temperature combination. But what are the chances of things still going wrong?

Obviously more strain is put on all the components which will cause them to wear out a bit sooner. But roughly, what are the negative side effects? I know its difficult to say, but has anyone had an experience where they caused permanent damage to their system after they figured it would be a safe overclock? And if so, how far down the road was this?

I34z1k · Post by **I34z1k** » 11 Nov 2007, 13:53

Damaged is caused by excessive voltage and/or heat.

I can clock my chip to 3.3ghz @ 1.2v, lowering temps but increasing performance, overall improve my cpu's lifespan.

Ram is another story. Overvolting d9s closes gates and shortens their lifetime drastically. But that is serious overvolting, like 0.2v over rated voltage for long periods of time. But in other cases, that's not the story.

I have some golden corsair 667 sticks here. Totally cheap stuff. Rated @ 1.8v @ 667c5. I ran them at nearly ddr1000 @ 2.35v and they are still running PERFECT. It just matters if you are careful or not

Bloodmonk · Post by **Bloodmonk** » 11 Nov 2007, 14:39

I34z1k wrote:Damaged is caused by excessive voltage and/or heat.

I can clock my chip to 3.3ghz @ 1.2v, lowering temps but increasing performance, overall improve my cpu's lifespan.

Ram is another story. Overvolting d9s closes gates and shortens their lifetime drastically. But that is serious overvolting, like 0.2v over rated voltage for long periods of time. But in other cases, that's not the story.

I have some golden corsair 667 sticks here. Totally cheap stuff. Rated @ 1.8v @ 667c5. I ran them at nearly ddr1000 @ 2.35v and they are still running PERFECT. It just matters if you are careful or not

I second you on that.....keep the temps low and all goes well.....

I34z1k · Post by **I34z1k** » 11 Nov 2007, 14:51

Yep. Just say qft

Check my sig mo'fo's

Post by **KillerByte** » 11 Nov 2007, 15:55

Fallen wrote:Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 B3 @ 3Ghz on 1.28v (66'C Load)
Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme CPU cooler /w Arctic Silver 5

Am I the only one that thinks that temp is unusually high for such a good cooler?

pienkie · Post by **pienkie** » 11 Nov 2007, 16:02

I34z1k wrote:Yep. Just say qft

Check my sig mo'fo's

Grrrr.... what does qft mean??

fiber-optics · Post by **fiber-optics** » 11 Nov 2007, 16:08

pienkie wrote:
I34z1k wrote:Yep. Just say qft

Check my sig mo'fo's
Grrrr.... what does qft mean??

source for noobs

QFT = quoted for true

pienkie · Post by **pienkie** » 11 Nov 2007, 16:14

Hahahahahahaha...

Ok i got owned... but thanks anyway

I34z1k · Post by **I34z1k** » 11 Nov 2007, 16:25

B3's run hot. What kinda load is it? Quads run very hot as it is, why do you think I dislike them so much.

WiK1d · Post by **WiK1d** » 11 Nov 2007, 16:54

fiber-optics wrote:
pienkie wrote:
I34z1k wrote:Yep. Just say qft

Check my sig mo'fo's
Grrrr.... what does qft mean??
source for noobs

QFT = quoted for true

Erm wrong

It's Quoted for Truth

Hex_Rated · Post by **Hex_Rated** » 11 Nov 2007, 17:02

Voltage is the main killer. Heat isn't good for the components but even if you keep your CPU cooled with cascade phase change at -50*C it will eventually die if the voltage is high. Supposedly the electrons begin to etch their own paths in the circuit on the CPU die because of the increased voltage.

Clockspeed contributes hardly anything, eg if you run your 2.0Ghz CPU at 2.5Ghz without touching the voltage and you keep it cool it shouldn't directly affect the lifespan at all. You will however stress the power regulation circuitry on the motherboard more than a non-overclocked system but most good boards are built to be overclocked anyway.

Fallen · Post by **Fallen** » 11 Nov 2007, 17:52

Ok cool, thanks for the comments. Still no one with a bad story? In addition then: If youve been running a relatively decent overclock (say more than 20% increase) for over a year now, please state and include for exactly how long.

@ Killerbyte, i was also expecting my temps to be a bit lower after i got this cooler & thermalpaste

Edit: @ Bazik, thats the average temp i get when i run a small FFT test on prime95.

Fallen · Post by **Fallen** » 11 Nov 2007, 18:05

Another thing: anyone think i should step down a bit from the overclock i currently have (reaching 66'C vs intels 62'C reccomendation) if i want the CPU to last for atleast another 5 years? Once again, i know its hard to say, so just give oppinions if neccesary.

I34z1k · Post by **I34z1k** » 11 Nov 2007, 19:02

Maybe too much thermal paste. 4 instances of ffts?

Bloodmonk · Post by **Bloodmonk** » 11 Nov 2007, 19:14

Too much thermal can increase heat.....

I have been running my cpu at 2.6 (2 stock) for almost a year and half...have not had any probs....

Is there a big diff in perfomance between your stock and oc'ed cpu...?

I34z1k · Post by **I34z1k** » 11 Nov 2007, 19:17

Its called thermal paste

or TIM.

Hex_Rated · Post by **Hex_Rated** » 11 Nov 2007, 19:22

Fallen wrote:Ok cool, thanks for the comments. Still no one with a bad story? In addition then: If youve been running a relatively decent overclock (say more than 20% increase) for over a year now, please state and include for exactly how long.

X2 running 25% overclock since Jan 2006 with 0.15V overvolt (1.55V, def 1.40V)
P4-C running 23% overclock since May 2003 with 0.10V overvolt (1.6V, def 1.5V)

Both have had some form of uprated cooling most of the time, either high end air or water.

Fallen · Post by **Fallen** » 11 Nov 2007, 20:12

Bazik, yep, running 4 instances.

Bloodmonk, yep, there is a definate increase in frame rates when oc'ed.

I recently reseated the cpu cooler, following the www.acrticsilver.com instructions to the T. Think i should try using even less?

Edit: Was wondering if it isnt maybe my case airflow. Altough i have a 120mm fan on the heasink and another placed as an exhaust running at 2000rpm (fan on heatsink runs lower, but temps seem better when i put the 2000rpm fan as an exhaust), aswell as another fan in front pulling air into the case. So i dont know.

I34z1k · Post by **I34z1k** » 11 Nov 2007, 20:16

Then its not tooo bad. Reseat it with less TIM.

RobThePyro · Post by **RobThePyro** » 11 Nov 2007, 20:37

I reseated my zalman 7700 like 6 times. in the end i mannaged to drop temps more than 10'C. just reseat a couple times. the more you do it the better you will get at doing it neatly and the lower your temps will be.

oh and remember the golden rule with Thermal paste: if you dont think you have put enough on, then you have allready put to much!!!!! lol....(should be as thin as possible layer!)

Rob~!

PCFormat Forum Archive

Negative effects of overclocking?

Negative effects of overclocking?

Re: Negative effects of overclocking?