Maxwell Render | Official public forum

Hi

I'm looking to buy a new pc in a couple of months and I was hoping some of you can give me some sound advise. Due to my tight budget I'm thinking of a Core i7 PC.

Benchwell gave the following results:
1. Overclocked 4.01GHz (2.66GHz), 3BG Ram - 7m29
2. Overclocked 3.80GHz (2.66GHz), 6BG Ram - 7m38
3. 2.66GHz, 3BG Ram - 9m29
4. Overclocked 3.16GHz (2.66GHz), 3BG Ram - 10m10
5. 2.66GHz, 4BG Ram - 12m03
6. 2.66GHz, 3BG Ram - 12m04

I understand 1. & 2. are overclocked therefore they're better than number 3. However, why is 3. faster than 4.-this doesn't seem logical for an overclocked machine to be slower than a normal one. Also, there is a huge difference in speed between 3. and 5./6. If I buy a system similar to the above (3./5./6.), how can I guarantee myself of the speeds attained by 3. and not 5./6.

I've never done overclocking before so if I buy a machine thats with the similar spec to 1., is there any disadvantages of overclocking a machine. Does this shorten the lifespan of the computer. Is it really beneficial to Overclock a machine seeing 3. beat 4. Please help.

Thanks,

And why is this machine at 3.2Ghz faster then them all them ??? Who knows .... Don't worry about it --- just build the machine.






As far as OC'ing, .....if you do arch vis., ..then I'd say it's worth it, ...product and jewlery shots render super fast at stock speeds.
There's also sound and power considerations with OC'ing, .. so it depends on what you need to get done and how fast and what will work for you.

As for degrading the processor from OC'ing ? I say in theory you have electron migration which means that the atoms get displaced from the running current -- specifically from using higher voltages. It's a theory, but with i7's you don't even have to up the voltage to OC, ..so your mostly dealing with thermal issues and stability, which is fairly easy to get a handle on with good cooling.

Thanks for your help, Ivox

shaun wrote: However, why is 3. faster than 4.-this doesn't seem logical for an overclocked machine to be slower than a normal one. Also, there is a huge difference in speed between 3. and 5./6.

3 must be a wrong entry - this difference is not possible

shaun wrote: is there any disadvantages of overclocking a machine.

No! Do it! if you don't raise the voltage too high there will be no noticable shortening of lifespan - maybe from 15 to 12 years...

Install a good silent cooler - not the boxed cooler. watercooling would be the best low noise cooling solution but you can get really good air cooler as well - but they are a bit louder.
How far you can get with the clockspeed depends on the processor. 4GHz+ at good temps must be a really good processor and only possible under watercooling. ~3,6GHz should be possible with air.

shaun wrote: is there any disadvantages of overclocking a machine.

I'm pretty sure there are ...
1 - you'll lose your warranty
2 - your computer crashes if it isn't cooled enough
3 - you consume more power

the ONLY advantage is, that you'll pay less money for a fast machine

kami wrote: 3 - you consume more power

efficiency is the best around 3,5-3,6 GHz and maybe higher if you get a really good chip, that needs low voltages...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ove ... 68-12.html

You don't need an i7 to be the king of the hill, a Celeron cpu can still rock!
Have a look at this..

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/new ... ocked-1ghz

/ Max

I just got an i7920 and overclocked it to 3.6 on an Asus P6t motherboard. You will need an aftermarket cooler to keep your temps down. I used a Noctua U12P I bought from newegg. Its big so make sure you have a case it will fit in if you get that one. I have 12gb of ram and from all the reading I did its harder to get an overclock around 4ghz with that amount of memory. I shot for 3.8ghz, but my voltage had to go too high and my temps got too hot for what I was comfortable with. Bumping it down to 3.6 worked perfectly though. I ran a stress test using Prime 95 for 24 hours and it was completely stable, and my temps were in a safe range. Use a program like Realtemp to get your temp reading. Dont rely on the motherboard software temp readings because they do not measure temps from the processor core. Before this machine I had only overclocked once before on a q9450 (2.66 OC to 3.4) I used it for a little over a year and never had any issues. Just read through forums and do a lot of google searches. You should be able to get at least a 3.4ghz overclock on a i7920 with only changing a few settings in the bios.

As far as those times and overclocks you posted #3 has to be a mistake. Its not possible to be that far off. They must have made a mistake running the benchmark scene. I know I did a fresh install of maxwell and forgot to drop my license file into the folder so it was running in demo mode. My benchmark and time was way faster than I was expecting. I put my license file in, and I got times and benchmarks that fit with what was expected. 3.6ghz was 1234 benchmark with a time of 8:27. I will eventually post it to the benchwell site, just have not had time yet.

Overclocking can be intimidating at first, but in my opinion the speed bump is well worth it. I will never buy a prebuilt pc like a dell or gateway. Its much cheaper to build your own then overclock it. I think it would be handy to have a spot on the forum here for overclocking tips.

Wow, thanks Eric. So much useful information, since I'm thinking of building pretty much the same machine. Just one little question: how much did it cost you?

m-Que wrote:Wow, thanks Eric. So much useful information, since I'm thinking of building pretty much the same machine. Just one little question: how much did it cost you?

Thats the beauty of building your own machine. The inital investment of my q9450 machine for the case, Power supply, Cooler fan, Graphics card, Mother board, CPU, Hard Drive x2 and 8gb ram was around $1200.00 For my i7 build the only new parts I needed was the motherboard, ram, cooler, and the cpu so my total was around $750.00 (all purchased from newegg) and by overclocking I get almost twice the performance of my old system. I also plan on selling the parts I replaced to help make up some of the cost of the new one. My estimate is I can get around $350.00-$400.00 for my old processor, motherboard and ram. If so my total investment now shrinks to around $350.00 for almost twice the performance. Not bad I think.

Make sure when you buy a new machine you get parts that might be able to be used on an upgrade. For example I could have gone with a 500w power supply, but I spent a little more and got a 700w that should last me a few upgrades if more power is needed in the future. Do this with all your parts. Try to think ahead. In retrospect I might have gotten a slightly larger case, because my new cooler barley fit. Something to think about anyway.

An Asus P6t and some ocz platinum ram http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6820227381 work great with the i7920 chip so far. I did have to lower the timings and speed on the ram to 9-9-9-24 @1444mhz instead of the speced 7-7-7-24 @1600 You can read in the reviews that others had to also once they had 12gb installed. Lowering the speed of the ram should not affect your benchmark though. The machine has been fast with everything I have thrown at it.

New core i5 ES preview benchmark

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/sh ... i=3570&p=8


* ES is engineering sample

Thanks everyone for your help.

Another question for all you helpful folks. What Graphics Card is a good one? The Quadro Cards are beyond my budget therefore I was thinking of the 3 below.

NVidia 9600GT 1Gig Ram
NVidia 9800GT 1 Gig Ram
NVidia GTS 250 1 Gig Ram

I'm leaning towards the 9600 because of price however do you know if the 9800 is worth the price increase for the difference in speed. Or is the GTS a good buy? I need help with this. Thanks.

ivox3 wrote:And why is this machine at 3.2Ghz faster then them all them ??? Who knows .... Don't worry about it --- just build the machine.
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/6986/bwivox920.jpg

774x619, the original scene runs at 960x768

-Adrian wrote:

ivox3 wrote:And why is this machine at 3.2Ghz faster then them all them ??? Who knows .... Don't worry about it --- just build the machine.
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/6986/bwivox920.jpg

774x619, the original scene runs at 960x768

aaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh