ARROW lake overclocking

[BoggledBeagle]

From this video:

I copied this transcript from youtube:

But we are bringing a ton of new features into how we overclock. Arrow Lake has a tremendous number of new overclocking capabilities and features. See, having a new architecture, the new SOC, a multi chip design, presents new opportunities for overclockers.

So we have a lot of new features. Right off, just knowing that we now have multiple chips,
how about the ability to overclock the interfaces between the chips that are talking to each other?
So we have a new die to die overclocking feature that's really exciting.
Die to Die is an interface that is between our compute die and our SOC die where the memory controller resides. And what's cool for over clockers is now we're allowing you to overclock that interface, creating a whole new opportunity to improve bandwidth and further tune your system.

We have a new feature that allows you to configure the processor's over clocked ratios in 16.6 megahertz steps. In fact, they can be larger. But 16.6 megahertz is interesting because now overclockers can move in sub hundred megahertz steps. So now, overclockers can configure each core.

For P-Cores, in 16 megahertz increments and their E-Cores, each group
of four can be also configured in 16 megahertz increments
for those top frequencies. So imagine you reach the end, what you thought was the end, 'cause you couldn't go another a hundred megahertz up, well, with this, you might be able to go 16 or 32 or so on to find where that absolute max threshold is for your system.

We've got a new dual B clock architecture.

Now, everyone knows about B clock going back 20 years. You know, there's generally always been a single B clock input. You know, that's your base clock. Now, we have dual B clock and that is helping us because you can now have a separate clock frequency for your compute die versus the rest of the chip, the I/O die, memory, et cetera, which is really important because you're, with, when it comes to B clock overclocking, you're always at the mercy of the first subsystem to fail. So by being able to separate that into dual B clock, you essentially can have one section of the, of the die,
of the processor, at a higher frequency than others. You can have, for example, one external clock
and one internal clock, or you could actually control them both internally. So it gives you a lot of flexibility, a lot of choice.

Now we have the ability to do fabric over clocking on Arrow Lake, another opportunity brought by the new architecture. This essentially can improve the communications within the SOC die itself.
And when you're doing memory overclocking, you, you may choose to overclock the fabric, die to die. And then of course, the memory frequency as well to ensure that full bandwidth without bottleneck exists.

- We also have something called DLVR bypass. So this is one of the more higher end, sort
of higher tech type of features. It lets you totally bypass our automatic voltage control.
- [Dan] DLVR is Digital Linear Voltage Regulator. And it is a new power delivery architecture
for desktop processors. And it brings with it some, some great efficiency benefits.
So that power efficiency is there. And it, it can allow the opportunity for overcclockers
to essentially have per core voltage. So for each P-Core, you can have its own voltage
and for each group of four E-Cores, you can configure a voltage for those as well.
So it's added flexibility. You don't have to run them all at that same fixed voltage.

For our extreme overclockers, people looking to go after world records, that top 1% of all consumers, they can actually bypass DLVR.

Again, it's, it's overclocking, it's extreme overclocking. We expect to see that done with like, liquid nitrogen, but you can bypass it such that your voltages can go, you know, even higher and enable, you know, those, those maximum LN2 liquid helium type frequencies.

Arrow Lake's new overclocking features are available also within the extreme tuning utility,
specifically the 16.6 megahertz ratios, the dual B clock, viewing the memory telemetry in a few settings as well. All these settings can be found in the XTU user interface.

So for me personally, one of the things I'm excited about with Arrow Lake, really, are the new 16.6 megahertz ratios. It's actually hard to pick a favorite. So I'll just also have to say exploring that die
to die interface, overclocking, and the fabric overclocking as well.

And I think for me, on the memory overclocking side, I'm gonna get some modules that can run at
that 8,000 mega transfer range, but that have headroom so that I can push them a bit further.
I'm gonna really go after that 9,000 plus range over time. So we'll see, see what I can do there.

But I'm just really excited to, to really get a handle on and explore these new, really, customizations that I can make that were never possible on prior generations.

I am not an overclocker, but some features seem very interesting, as separate voltage for each P core.

And it, it can allow the opportunity for overcclockers
to essentially have per core voltage. So for each P-Core, you can have its own voltage and for each group of four E-Cores, you can configure a voltage for those as well.

I have no idea what will the implementation of this look like, but if it will be just an option for a static voltage for static frequency, it would be almost useless.

In theory it would be best for each P core or group of E cores to have its own configurable voltage curve, or at least have its own offset voltage setting.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

Per core voltage is not new. E-cores are still bundled 4 at a time and OC all core individually.

8P overclocking vs older 8P overclocking took an 8 threads kick to the nuts, no more HT. This means any benchmarks 8c vs 8c will get completely clobbered by anything with HT previously released.

So 8 P-core by themselves is useless benchmarking at this point, competitively speaking of course.

These transcripts you copy pasted seem funny to me.

16.6 Megahertz? No, it's a 166mhz divider.

100mhz
133mhz
166mhz
200mhz
So forth.

And DVLr is already in Raptor Lake chips, but said to be disabled? Needs more information research.

So far, nothing here makes Arrow Lake appealing.

They are expensive. Have less threads. Lower clocks, and doesn't game as well as previous gen chips.

I feel there's nothing to Save Intel at this time. They flushed themselves down a toilet already, and Arrow Lake doesn't make up for it.

Also, noting 250w for a 285K means no thermal headroom for overclocking, just like Raptor. So nobody will really be doing any "overclocking" with these with their current cooling.

What makes these even uglier to look at, need a new motherboard again to actually loose performance. Nothing good to note here besides the e-cores are a little faster and you get a few extra. Too bad this doesn't make up the loss of P-core performance. Sad face.

 

[Macro Device]

CPU overclocking died when some of TPU members weren't even born. The latest CPU line-up you could squeeze much juice from with OC is probably Sandy Bridge with about 45 percent maximum gains. Now it's more like 2... Perhaps 5 percent more performance for about five million watts more consumption. Not worth even thinking of it.

UV all the way. Efficiency is the king.

 

[Fouquin]

16.6 Megahertz? No, it's a 166mhz divider.

No that part is correct. Similar to how AMD has 25MHz steps, or 4:1, Intel now has 16.667MHz steps for 6:1.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

No that part is correct. Similar to how AMD has 25MHz steps, or 4:1, Intel now has 16.667MHz steps for 6:1.

View attachment 367151

Oh, I understand better now. I appreciate that. Thank you!

 

[sn2x]

They are expensive.

265K seems very competitively priced.

Have less threads. Lower clocks, and doesn't game as well as previous gen chips.

MT performance seems improved from last gen. Less threads/slightly lower clocks is meaningless if so.

Gaming performance remains to be seen. Intel claimed parity (+/- 3%).

I feel there's nothing to Save Intel at this time. They flushed themselves down a toilet already, and Arrow Lake doesn't make up for it.

Still a chance sweet spot RAM can turn things in Arrow Lake's favor. They claimed the RAM sweet spot is DDR5 8000, we haven't seen the numbers yet though, but I could see this making a difference. Faster RAM could scale better on Arrow Lake than on Raptor Lake and Arrow Lake seems to be capable of higher speeds as well.

Also, noting 250w for a 285K means no thermal headroom for overclocking, just like Raptor. So nobody will really be doing any "overclocking" with these with their current cooling.

It has been stated that the E-cores do have overclocking headroom, Gamer's Nexus mentioned some can hit 5 GHz on the E-cores, which would be >8% improvement on those cores, which would extend the MT lead even further.

Nothing good to note here besides the e-cores are a little faster and you get a few extra. Too bad this doesn't make up the loss of P-core performance. Sad face.

E-coresn't aren't just a little faster. 32% IPC is massive. They are also clocked higher than last gen, making the improvement closer to 40%. 50%+ over last gen if you get a sample that can hit 5GHz on the E-cores.

To me they do seem to make up for the loss of P-core performance. The 285K was beating the 9950X in some MT scenarios, making the 285K the fastest MT CPU in certain workloads. I'm not sure what more you were expecting...

 

[ShrimpBrime]

265K seems very competitively priced.


MT performance seems improved from last gen. Less threads/slightly lower clocks is meaningless if so.

Gaming performance remains to be seen. Intel claimed parity (+/- 3%).


Still a chance sweet spot RAM can turn things in Arrow Lake's favor. They claimed the RAM sweet spot is DDR5 8000, we haven't seen the numbers yet though, but I could see this making a difference. Faster RAM could scale better on Arrow Lake than on Raptor Lake and Arrow Lake seems to be capable of higher speeds as well.


It has been stated that the E-cores do have overclocking headroom, Gamer's Nexus mentioned some can hit 5 GHz on the E-cores, which would be >8% improvement on those cores, which would extend the MT lead even further.


E-coresn't aren't just a little faster. 32% IPC is massive. They are also clocked higher than last gen, making the improvement closer to 40%. 50%+ over last gen if you get a sample that can hit 5GHz on the E-cores.

To me they do seem to make up for the loss of P-core performance. The 285K was beating the 9950X in some MT scenarios, making the 285K the fastest MT CPU in certain workloads. I'm not sure what more you were expecting...

I know, I get all that. But then there's -->

Intel's Core Ultra 9 285K Performance Claims Leaked, Doesn't Beat i9-14900K at Gaming

The Chinese tech press is abuzz with slides allegedly from Intel's pre-launch press-deck for the Core Ultra 2-series "Arrow Lake-S." The most sensational of these are Intel's first-party performance claims for the top Core Ultra 9 285K model. There's good news and bad news. Good news first—Intel...

www.techpowerup.com

Cinebench 23 beating competition doesn't make it a good gaming cpu. If it doesn't gain ground for gaming rigs, who's buying this for gaming and why?

5ghz E-cores on current Intel 14th Gen requires chilling in most cases. Only because it requires like 1.5v to run them that fast. The power is there, the thermal head room is not. It's very obvious to myself that HT was slashed to hand the wattage over to the E-core package. Which hurts it in gaming. 6Ghz P-core has quite a bit more muscle than any e-core yet, so why add more E-cores. They should have added more P-cores and left HT enabled instead. Then, we'd have some strong gaming chips. But no. Cinebench is everything!!! lol.

 

[sn2x]

I know, I get all that. But then there's -->

That's Intel's presentation where they claimed parity in gaming.
And we still haven't seen benchmarks with DDR5 8000, what Intel calls sweetspot RAM. It could actually make a difference...

Cinebench 23 beating competition doesn't make it a good gaming cpu.

No one is saying it does, but having the highest IPC might matter to some people. Emulation for example tends to run fastest on the highest single thread CPUs, Arrow Lake could end up the fastest emulation CPU, for instance.

If it doesn't gain ground for gaming rigs, who's buying this for gaming and why?

It's still an upgrade for a lot of people. A lot of people avoided last gen i7s and i9s because of the power draw. I myself avoided CPUs like 14700K and 14900K because I wouldn't have been able to adequately cool them unless I under-volted. I might consider 265K though, similar performance at much lower power levels. And high speed RAM might actually make a difference.

5ghz E-cores on current Intel 14th Gen requires chilling in most cases.

And on Arrow Lake it sounds like it could be possible on standard cooling. Out of the box Arrow E-cores clock 200-600 MHz higher than 14th Gen.

6Ghz P-core has quite a bit more muscle than any e-core yet

And 5.7 GHz P-Core from Arrow will beat Raptor 6 GHz P-Core in many scenarios.

so why add more E-cores.

Its the same E-core count as 14th gen but they have become ~40% stronger gen/gen allowing Arrow Lake to beat Raptor Lake in MT by a bit, and even beats the 9950X in some cases.

What do you want, 12 P-Core Arrow with HT? It would lose to even a 265K in many scenarios.

 

[iameatingjam]

8P overclocking vs older 8P overclocking took an 8 threads kick to the nuts, no more HT. This means any benchmarks 8c vs 8c will get completely clobbered by anything with HT previously released.

Okay, why would you care about HT? It would have to be for MT performance, right? Because MT performance is where there is the most gains. So I don't understand what you are upset about. Gaming rarely cares about hyperthreading, unless you have 4 or less pcores.

So here's something interesting I found out recently.... when playing ff16, I was getting this error whenever I left it running in the background for too long. I thought going to performance power plan might solve it but intel said not to do that, so I didn't. But I thought perhaps assigning it to the pcores only might solve the problem so I gave that a try. And suddenly I was getting stuttering I didn't have before, like quite severe stuttering. Are games starting to use ecores right out the gate now, to the point where they actually make a difference? Or maybe its just this game? I don't know, but it was certainly unexpected.

I know, I get all that. But then there's -->

Intel's Core Ultra 9 285K Performance Claims Leaked, Doesn't Beat i9-14900K at Gaming

The Chinese tech press is abuzz with slides allegedly from Intel's pre-launch press-deck for the Core Ultra 2-series "Arrow Lake-S." The most sensational of these are Intel's first-party performance claims for the top Core Ultra 9 285K model. There's good news and bad news. Good news first—Intel...

www.techpowerup.com

Cinebench 23 beating competition doesn't make it a good gaming cpu. If it doesn't gain ground for gaming rigs, who's buying this for gaming and why?

Yup those are intel's official announcement slides for sure. Who's buying it for gaming? Probably those who also have work to do, and don't want the risks of raptor lake, if I were to take a guess. Looks like intel's trying for a reset, I mean either they were going to have to set the ground work for something in the future or continue down their current path. And we can see where their current path has lead them. But I'll wait for the release until I make up my mind. Though I'm not buying it either way. I'm using my *checks watch* 4 years left of rma support on my 14700kf.

 

[phanbuey]

Im curious to see how it does with 9600Mhz memory. Based on the performance of the 7700x3d and how the 9700x does nothing for gaming despite being a much faster computational core makes me think gaming is currently bandwith starved in general.

I think overclocking will be the only salvation here.

 

[N/A]

I can imagine that at 9600 the big downer is gear 4. Uncore is cut in half therefore the sweet spot is maxing gear 2.

 

[ir_cow]

Im curious to see how it does with 9600Mhz memory.

Not good if the Gear 4 turns out to be true. That would essentially mean you need 12K+ to match 9200 Gear 2.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

That's Intel's presentation where they claimed parity in gaming.
And we still haven't seen benchmarks with DDR5 8000, what Intel calls sweetspot RAM. It could actually make a difference...


No one is saying it does, but having the highest IPC might matter to some people. Emulation for example tends to run fastest on the highest single thread CPUs, Arrow Lake could end up the fastest emulation CPU, for instance.


It's still an upgrade for a lot of people. A lot of people avoided last gen i7s and i9s because of the power draw. I myself avoided CPUs like 14700K and 14900K because I wouldn't have been able to adequately cool them unless I under-volted. I might consider 265K though, similar performance at much lower power levels. And high speed RAM might actually make a difference.


And on Arrow Lake it sounds like it could be possible on standard cooling. Out of the box Arrow E-cores clock 200-600 MHz higher than 14th Gen.


And 5.7 GHz P-Core from Arrow will beat Raptor 6 GHz P-Core in many scenarios.


Its the same E-core count as 14th gen but they have become ~40% stronger gen/gen allowing Arrow Lake to beat Raptor Lake in MT by a bit, and even beats the 9950X in some cases.

What do you want, 12 P-Core Arrow with HT? It would lose to even a 265K in many scenarios.

Okay, why would you care about HT? It would have to be for MT performance, right? Because MT performance is where there is the most gains. So I don't understand what you are upset about. Gaming rarely cares about hyperthreading, unless you have 4 or less pcores.

So here's something interesting I found out recently.... when playing ff16, I was getting this error whenever I left it running in the background for too long. I thought going to performance power plan might solve it but intel said not to do that, so I didn't. But I thought perhaps assigning it to the pcores only might solve the problem so I gave that a try. And suddenly I was getting stuttering I didn't have before, like quite severe stuttering. Are games starting to use ecores right out the gate now, to the point where they actually make a difference? Or maybe its just this game? I don't know, but it was certainly unexpected.

Yup those are intel's official announcement slides for sure. Who's buying it for gaming? Probably those who also have work to do, and don't want the risks of raptor lake, if I were to take a guess. Looks like intel's trying for a reset, I mean either they were going to have to set the ground work for something in the future or continue down their current path. And we can see where their current path has lead them. But I'll wait for the release until I make up my mind. Though I'm not buying it either way. I'm using my *checks watch* 4 years left of rma support on my 14700kf.

Not even gonna try and break this down.

I prefer P-cores. Most of my gaming runs well on them. Often times disabled e-cores for gaming. Latest installed War Thunder. I'm banging out up to 500fps+ 1080p at 4ghz. Max visual settings.

I am certain, 8 p-cores will run very many gaming titles just fine well and even better on DX9 feom the IPC gains, HT missing.

Yes, I'd love to see a 12 P-core CPU with like 4 E-cores or something simple. After all, we want those for back yard work the operating system may utilize them E-cores!!

The cpu is fast. But I feel the lack of HT will become lack of luster.

The 14700K I have, has scored very well in 8P 2D benchmarks. In some cases 50th place wr. In others top 100. Of all 8P core subs through all time. However, this is with HT. All through time. 285K 8P will never touch anything multithreaded 8P against many generations when concerning MT tasks. So on that note, it's not even appealing to myself as an enthusiast. Just on this simple aspect alone.

Is what it is. The design and sales will forth come! And we shall see Intel kill AMD in sales!!!! (Not serious comment)

 

[JoeTheDestroyer]

So here's something interesting I found out recently.... when playing ff16, I was getting this error whenever I left it running in the background for too long. I thought going to performance power plan might solve it but intel said not to do that, so I didn't. But I thought perhaps assigning it to the pcores only might solve the problem so I gave that a try. And suddenly I was getting stuttering I didn't have before, like quite severe stuttering. Are games starting to use ecores right out the gate now, to the point where they actually make a difference? Or maybe its just this game? I don't know, but it was certainly unexpected.

I've encountered something recently that may be related. Specifically, it seems some games' Directx12 implementations don't like having their cpu affinity messed with. In my case, it's triggered by me locking games to my 7950X3D's vcache cores. Examples include Civ6 which stutters during the opening video and completely locks up during gameplay, and Satisfactory which would show regular huge lag spikes. In both cases, setting the game to use Directx11 instead fixes the issue.

 

[iameatingjam]

I've encountered something recently that may be related. Specifically, it seems some games' Directx12 implementations don't like having their cpu affinity messed with. In my case, it's triggered by me locking games to my 7950X3D's vcache cores. Examples include Civ6 which stutters during the opening video and completely locks up during gameplay, and Satisfactory which would show regular huge lag spikes. In both cases, setting the game to use Directx11 instead fixes the issue.

Interesting. In that case I'll have to disable them from the bios and try again to see if it makes a difference. Thanks for the info.

 

[N/A]

Arrow lake has two GPU tiles and a Mem controller in the Media Decoder / NPU tile.. we have to overclock tile to tile now presented as a cool feature.

 

[iameatingjam]

Arrow lake has two GPU tiles and a Mem controller in the Media Decoder / NPU tile.. we have to overclock tile to tile now presented as a cool feature.

View attachment 367608

And now we are all going to wonder ( or at least I would) about overclocking what - is possibly going to lead to degredation and instability down the road. Whether or not thats reality - its what intel has implanted in our minds with raptor lake.

Though I suppose its a good thing all the cpu cores are on the same tile.

 

[BoggledBeagle]

And now we are all going to wonder ( or at least I would) about overclocking what - is possibly going to lead to degredation and instability down the road.

As the degradation is a normal process happening in any chip, modern manufacturing processes which are getting more miniaturised are most likely becoming more and more sensitive and prone to degradation.

I believe that CPUs which are tunable/overclockable by users should have some safeguards in place that prevent them from wearing out too quickly.

Beside that, consumers should be provided with some advice from the manufacturer about the expected lifetime of the CPU in default settings and how this lifetime would change if the users increased the frequencies by 33,3 MHz, 66,6 MHz, etc., and all these for a few realistic usage intensity scenarios.

 

[chrcoluk]

Per core voltage is not new. E-cores are still bundled 4 at a time and OC all core individually.

8P overclocking vs older 8P overclocking took an 8 threads kick to the nuts, no more HT. This means any benchmarks 8c vs 8c will get completely clobbered by anything with HT previously released.

So 8 P-core by themselves is useless benchmarking at this point, competitively speaking of course.

These transcripts you copy pasted seem funny to me.

16.6 Megahertz? No, it's a 166mhz divider.

100mhz
133mhz
166mhz
200mhz
So forth.

And DVLr is already in Raptor Lake chips, but said to be disabled? Needs more information research.

So far, nothing here makes Arrow Lake appealing.

They are expensive. Have less threads. Lower clocks, and doesn't game as well as previous gen chips.

I feel there's nothing to Save Intel at this time. They flushed themselves down a toilet already, and Arrow Lake doesn't make up for it.

Also, noting 250w for a 285K means no thermal headroom for overclocking, just like Raptor. So nobody will really be doing any "overclocking" with these with their current cooling.

What makes these even uglier to look at, need a new motherboard again to actually loose performance. Nothing good to note here besides the e-cores are a little faster and you get a few extra. Too bad this doesn't make up the loss of P-core performance. Sad face.

I have managed to find a way to reasonably compare e-cores to extra logical cores (HT) in a gaming type scenario, although timespy still works the CPU way harder than games typically do.

One of the 3dmark CPU tests (forgot which one but I think it is the timespy one) uses a fixed 16 threads. So on my 13700k I can make it all on p-cores 2 threads per p-core, or 8 e-cores plus 1 thread per p-core, the e-cores win easily. Running the test on p-core only with no HT vs p-core only with HT is a loss of about 15%, adding e-cores so then only 1 thread per p-core, the performance jumps about 60%. So for 3dmark workload e-cores are about 4x as fast as HT.

As I said in earlier posts, I think Intel are doing the right thing in dropping HT, I consider it dated tech, but they need to get the scheduling right for it to not be a noticeable hindrance in the very few high threaded games. Most non AAA games use far less than 8 threads, so this only really affects the type of games that reviewers focus on which are a small part of the overall PC market.

 

[AVATARAT]

I'm not sure exactly what Intel is offering with this new platform.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

I have managed to find a way to reasonably compare e-cores to extra logical cores (HT) in a gaming type scenario, although timespy still works the CPU way harder than games typically do.

One of the 3dmark CPU tests (forgot which one but I think it is the timespy one) uses a fixed 16 threads. So on my 13700k I can make it all on p-cores 2 threads per p-core, or 8 e-cores plus 1 thread per p-core, the e-cores win easily. Running the test on p-core only with no HT vs p-core only with HT is a loss of about 15%, adding e-cores so then only 1 thread per p-core, the performance jumps about 60%. So for 3dmark workload e-cores are about 4x as fast as HT.

As I said in earlier posts, I think Intel are doing the right thing in dropping HT, I consider it dated tech, but they need to get the scheduling right for it to not be a noticeable hindrance in the very few high threaded games. Most non AAA games use far less than 8 threads, so this only really affects the type of games that reviewers focus on which are a small part of the overall PC market.

Dated tech. The X86 core it's self is dated tech. 2 threads 1 clock cycle. That's powerful and very much efficient way of computing. It costs you no extra die space. (Use AMD for an example, coming in about 1.5 decades late to the SMT game and everyone loves it.)

My 14700K has more E-cores than P-cores. Right, so will the new processors. Disappointingly enough, as I once stated already that I feel there should be more P cores than E cores. Not that we shouldn't have any E-cores at all.....

285K - SIXTEEN Area efficient cores. EIGHT Performance cores. (New!! with no HT!!)
So a different perspective there.

They should now advertise this way ""NEW 285K with Sixteen, that's right 16 E-cores!!! 40% faster than the P-core array you might rather do your harder more demanding work loads with. But no HT now, BT wait 16 area efficient cores!

My i3 14100K completely smokes an i7 1355U out of the water for an example. That's a quad vs a Deca core by the way. The U obviously a mobile part. A very higher end expensive mobile part. That was a 1200 lappy when I purchased it. 14100F like 100$ and it completely spanks the Fk out of a high end business class mobile processor. (this is how I sales builds for people. You have mobile in your pocket, how much more do you need than the Big Little cores in your hand really? This sales pitch is easy, because I have personal numbers to reflect these differences.

So Area efficient cores are totally awesome in a mobile environment, and also great for background and low end tasks. But let me ask how many threads from software that you've installed actually set into a low priority in the system? NEVER. That's part of the issue indeed is accurate control of the operating system and hardware interface. (Why they tell you to update ME firmware AND software). But how many people actually keep up on that kind of PC maintenance? Some bios gain performance, others loose it. Averages.

I think the single core IPC gains are phenomenal actually. I just think the Big Little approach should favor P-cores. Just my humble opinion. Nothing has to be factual cause they are going to be sold. Just not to me personally. I see no gains buying one. I'd rather go 16c32t AMD and call it a day.

 

[Ruru]

CPU overclocking died when some of TPU members weren't even born. The latest CPU line-up you could squeeze much juice from with OC is probably Sandy Bridge with about 45 percent maximum gains. Now it's more like 2... Perhaps 5 percent more performance for about five million watts more consumption. Not worth even thinking of it.

UV all the way. Efficiency is the king.

Totally agree. Though I'd say that Skylake with all its variations still had benefits with manual OC.

 

[Macro Device]

Skylake with all its variations still had benefits with manual OC.

Delidding to make it thermally plausible. Big chonker cooler to supplement it. Expensive motherboard to remove software limitations. More than $100 extra on top of the CPU itself being at least 50 dollars more expensive. And what for? 10? 15 percent more performance? Only worth it if you're paid for your calculating power or have too much money.

 

[Ruru]

Delidding to make it thermally plausible. Big chonker cooler to supplement it. Expensive motherboard to remove software limitations. More than $100 extra on top of the CPU itself being at least 50 dollars more expensive. And what for? 10? 15 percent more performance? Only worth it if you're paid for your calculating power or have too much money.

Nah, reasonable platform for Sky/Kaby/Coffee OC'ing didn't cost that much premium like modern hardware has. But I somewhat agree though.

 

[Macro Device]

reasonable platform for Sky/Kaby/Coffee OC'ing didn't cost that much premium like modern hardware has.

That's why $150, not $400 like today. xD

Prices go up, sense goes down. Like in any other capitalism fiesta.