overclocking in any way necessary/beneficial ?

[Mister Natural]

not sure how to phrase the question but looking at cpu reviews, it seems that OCing your machine generates mucho heat in the case. Most recco this or that cooler . . .
I believe that heat shortens the life span of any single component : heat is bad

I'm also reading between the lines that these comments & reviews come from gamer-boys
I do not game - I just make music (Ableton LIVE)

1. Is a 4/6/8 core cpu running at 3+ghz "good enough" or should it be tweaked-out to be faster ?
2. Does using a modern cpu to make music cause the chip(s) to heat ? My current machine (circa 2009) seems to run fairly cool . . .

peace

[planetearth]

not sure how to phrase the question but looking at cpu reviews, it seems that OCing your machine generates mucho heat in the case. Most recco this or that cooler . . .
I believe that heat shortens the life span of any single component : heat is bad

I'm also reading between the lines that these comments & reviews come from gamer-boys
I do not game - I just make music (Ableton LIVE)

1. Is a 4/6/8 core cpu running at 3+ghz "good enough" or should it be tweaked-out to be faster ?
2. Does using a modern cpu to make music cause the chip(s) to heat ? My current machine (circa 2009) seems to run fairly cool . . .

peace

You'll probably get a lot of different opinions on this, but if you ask me (which you kinda did! ), if your machine is fast enough for the projects you want to do, don't worry about overclocking yet. Generally speaking, a 4-core CPU at 3+ GHz won't run as many plug-ins as an 8-core one would (all other things being equal), but since you don't specifically say which one you have, it's hard to give a specific answer. Overclocking either processor will generate more heat, and will require a faster fan (or more efficient cooling system), and probably faster RAM. The faster fan(s) may add more noise (unless you go with a water-cooled system)--but they and the RAM will certainly add more cost.

Bottom line--if it ain't broke, don't fix it. When you can no longer run the projects you want to in Live, then it's time to consider overclocking. That will buy you some time, but how much depends upon the speed of the other components in your system (most importantly, the RAM).

Steve

[dusted william]

I overclocked my machine to 4.4 ghz.. depending on which meausrement you use.

I'm very happy I did this, but I got the most bang by tweaking my windows 8 install for DAW use.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhQVkv3NM3k

following the tips in this video, my machine is running insane!

dw

[ntom]

not sure how to phrase the question but looking at cpu reviews, it seems that OCing your machine generates mucho heat in the case. Most recco this or that cooler . . .
I believe that heat shortens the life span of any single component : heat is bad

I'm also reading between the lines that these comments & reviews come from gamer-boys
I do not game - I just make music (Ableton LIVE)

1. Is a 4/6/8 core cpu running at 3+ghz "good enough" or should it be tweaked-out to be faster ?
2. Does using a modern cpu to make music cause the chip(s) to heat ? My current machine (circa 2009) seems to run fairly cool . . .

peace

Ironically, it's funny that OCing became a gamer-thing when actually most games today rely WAY more heavily on your GPU than your CPU, with a few exceptions of games that typically are either focused on on a niche audience, or focused on a wide audience (that will typically mean lower specs for even the crappiest computers to run); those types of games being simulators and MMOs. But, I digress.

OCing for music production is a good idea if you have good cooling. Overclocking does exactly what it sounds like it does: It increases the rate at which your CPU polls. Thus, the fast it churns, the more heat it creates. If you have an OEM cooler, DO NOT OVERCLOCK. If you have an aftermarket cooler, run "Speccy" by Piriform or any other temperature monitoring software and make some records of temperature of your CPU. Ideally, you want a 32-35 degree idle and a peak of less than 55 (These values may vary depending on your CPU Series and Generation).
Tools today can make overclocking an absurdly simple task. My motherboard has an overclocking software that I basically tell it what percent increase in CPU performance I want and it will try it's damnedest to reach that with a stable overclock.
Secondly what you need to keep in mind is if your CPU is overclockable in the first place.
You didn't specify what manufacturer you use so I need to go on a short tangent to respond to "Planetearth"'s comment:
There is a misconception about cores directly being beneficial to CPU performance. "Oh, man, look, AMD has an 8 core CPU! This expensive ass Intel i7 has only 4, it must suck!"
I've made this post many times in this forum section: Cores are only as good as the software and architecture can support them. AMD works in cores and Intel works in Hyperthreads. Cores are good but have limited use because they are physical cores - the result is more heat and less softwares can take full advantage of them. Hyperthreading in layman's terms, are virtual cores. So if 1 core has 2 hyper threads, then a quad core CPU is as effective - if not more so - than an 8 core CPU. But you need to keep in mind most softwares are programmed with how to utilize the cores, so if the software doesn't tell what cores 5, 6, 7, and 8 to do, then they won't be used. You can check core usage in windows 7 and up by going to the task manager, selecting performance, and going to the "CPU" tab - in Win8 you may need to right-click the graph and set to "Logical Processors". Keep this window open and run heavy softwares and you can see how the software takes advantage of your CPU. So this is where Hyperthreading excels. Since the threads are attached to the existing cores, that means a single core can do more than a single core without hyper threads.

So, back on track about OCing.
IF you are running an Intel CPU it is ridiculously easy to find out if it's over-clockable due to Intel's very intelligent part numbering. View your system - in Win7, if I remember correctly, open the start menu, right click on "my computer" and select "Properties". In Win8 and up, right click the windows icon and select "system"
In the new dialogue box it shows "system" with your processor. If the processor has a number similar to this example: "i5-4670k" then you can tell your part is over-clockable by the "k" at the end.
This simply means the part is factory unlocked and should be able to be pushed beyond the OEM limits. Theoretically, even non "K" parts can still be over-clocked, BUT, they will have a limiter put on them to prevent exceeding the factory specifications (in addition to voiding any warranty).

Over-clocking is also very "luck-of-the-draw", as well. Some "K" parts over-clock better than others. Some over clock better because of the motherboard, or sometimes worse. Sometimes they do better because of your power supply, sometimes they do worse. Sometimes a strange ray of photons bounce off the surface of Jupiter and make your CPU overclock better...or sometimes worse (frankly, I have no idea why we spend so much money researching on making Quatum State Computing when Overclocking already seems to be in a superposition).

So to sum up this lengthy post: Overclocking is a good idea if you think it's necessary and you have the right set up to do it. It's no longer a difficult task to do with crunching numbers, setting polling rates to match the poll-rate of your RAM and so on and so forth. You need good cooling, a proper part, and probably a good powersupply too. So, pretty much I wouldn't overclock unless you built your computer yourself - and even then, like myself, I don't see it necessary to run my system so hot. Increased clock speed has diminishing returns. You probably will only do 10-15% better, and you need to ask if that 10-15% clock speed is really worth it. Even though I built my system my answer to that is: no. Honestly, I picked the parts I needed, and because I knew what I was doing and I knew what I was looking for, my computer, albeit tiny and only on an i5, can still run circles around more expensive machines today and I still have headroom to overclock if I want to, but I don't

And to leave off, here is some competitive overclocking (yes, I'm not trying to make a joke, there are over-clocking competitions and there are people who get very serious about it)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmSBaizEqkk

[BertKoor]

overclocking in any way necessary/beneficial ?

It sure can be if you can't run your projects without buffer underruns....

believe that heat shortens the life span of any single component : heat is bad

Higher clock speeds require higher voltages on the RAM & CPU chips to still run reliable. That's where the heat increase mainly comes from, and thus you then need better cooling because indeed in the long term heat shortens the lifespan. But shortening the lifespan from 15 to 3 years doesn't matter if you buy a new rig every year.

1. Is a 4/6/8 core cpu running at 3+ghz "good enough" or should it be tweaked-out to be faster ?
2. Does using a modern cpu to make music cause the chip(s) to heat ? My current machine (circa 2009) seems to run fairly cool . . .

With that last remark on 2. you have answered 1. yourself

[Shabdahbriah]

1. Is a 4/6/8 core cpu running at 3+ghz "good enough" or should it be tweaked-out to be faster ?
2. Does using a modern cpu to make music cause the chip(s) to heat ? My current machine (circa 2009) seems to run fairly cool . . .

peace

I OC'd for almost a couple of decades, and am comfortable with BIOS tweaks, water cooling, and custom case mods, the noise, and the risks involved, etc. If you are not, don't bother. [2c]

[cron]

With the K chips, talking about overclocking is kind of a misnomer in most cases. Overclocking is precisely what they were designed to do, and Intel's specifications make this clear. I'm currently running an Ivy Bridge i5 at 4.5GHz (with a third party cooler), but I'm still running it well within Intel's specifications with regard to voltage and temperature. So there's a pretty compelling argument to be made that, since I haven't exceeded the specification to achieve the quicker clock speed, I'm not really overclocking in the true sense at all. My chip was never intended to run at the 3.4GHz that Intel's factory set it to at production. With the K chips, you could just as easily say that they arrive underclocked. Nearly all can achieve an enormous boost on this stock clock without exceeding the specification.

[Mister Natural]

should prolly have mentioned that my Q ? comes as the result of researching my next build - not the use of my current machine. Thinking this summer.
Above comments are mixed with those who do and those who don't OC
Also reading that with heavy vst use; it does benefit performance & not sure what that means. Within any one LIVE project, I would typically be using 2 instances of Z3ta+2, one uTonic, one Geist, maybe one UltraAnalog, one or two Alchemys along with several sample & audio tracks. In terms of efx, using primarily native Ableton along with Valhalla Vintage Verb and perhaps CamelSpace or the new Tantra.
Master with Ozone5 after mixing (& currently change the buffer settings before this phase to reduce cpu load).
I don't have Omnisphere or Diva, both I understand are cpu hogs. Don't use huge sampler orchestras.

[arkmabat]

It completely depends. How it works is they produce the processor, test each processor's limits and then give it a name after. As far as I understand, An i5 could actually be an i7 that just barely missed the mark and so they underclocked it accordingly. It just depends.

[ntom]

It completely depends. How it works is they produce the processor, test each processor's limits and then give it a name after. As far as I understand, An i5 could actually be an i7 that just barely missed the mark and so they underclocked it accordingly. It just depends.

not to be pedantic, but i7s have hyperthreading while i5s don't. So....no, not even close.

[ntom]

Actually, since you said you are building your own computer, I want to put in my own 2 cents since this is basically something I do for a living.

I use to have an 3rd gen i7 Sandybridge and this f*cker was a power house of a beast. Some of my most massively full projects of VSTs couldn't even hit the 50% load on this processor. Honestly, if you do massive projects with lots of VST synths *cough*Diva*cough*, and I mean MASSIVE projects, an i7 by itself will be more than enough for you without overclocking. They are quite expensive though, so take your pick.
When I built my most recent computer, I found that the i7 was more than I needed for nearly all applications, so I stepped down to a Haswell i5-4670k. I honestly think it's in that "Goldilocks" range of PC parts. It's powerful enough, but not overkill. It's price is a little steep (because Intel...), but it definitely isn't insane in price like the i7s.

Speaking of insane, you should build a PC using any CPU that utilizes the new 2011-3 socket. If you want to talk about overkill

[camsr]

Overclocking is great if your system is capable of the increased heat generation. Generally, overclocking is a bad thing, it has a bad rap because the chips weren't good enough to overclock. Intel builds overclocking into their processors now via Turbo Boost.

[Keith99]

Been OC my PCs for years and never had a failed component. Get a decent OC motherboard and chip and you are good

[Shabdahbriah]

should prolly have mentioned that my Q ? comes as the result of researching my next build - not the use of my current machine. Thinking this summer.
Above comments are mixed with those who do and those who don't OC
Also reading that with heavy vst use; it does benefit performance & not sure what that means. Within any one LIVE project, I would typically be using 2 instances of Z3ta+2, one uTonic, one Geist, maybe one UltraAnalog, one or two Alchemys along with several sample & audio tracks. In terms of efx, using primarily native Ableton along with Valhalla Vintage Verb and perhaps CamelSpace or the new Tantra.
Master with Ozone5 after mixing (& currently change the buffer settings before this phase to reduce cpu load).
I don't have Omnisphere or Diva, both I understand are cpu hogs. Don't use huge sampler orchestras.

From these details, it does not appear that you have a need to OC, if your new build incorporates (for example) an i5-4670k, or any (afaik) i7 processor currently available. A mid-range i7 wouldn't "break a sweat" doing the above, and anything more costly (including OC'ing, with the accessories required to do it properly), is just that... "overkill". [2c]

[b4serenity]

I totally relate to your situation and frustration!! I built an AMD machine because of the bang for the buck. It was around $800 something with a FX-8320 3.5 overclocked to a stable 4.2

That's an easy STABLE +20% increase in performance for only the cost of a Corsair H55 liquid cooler (which was less than $60). $60 for a 20%increase is a no-brainer with me, but I DO like to tinker with things. YMMV.

PM me if you're interested in what I used in my build.