Compare i5 8600k at 4.7GHz with a 5GHz model to see the differences.
Compare i5 8600k at 4.7GHz with a 5GHz model to see the differences.
I checked my 8600k stable at 4.7 with 1.325 Vcore and full load around 70°C using Kraken X62. I haven't found a stable setting for 5 GHz yet.
My concern is whether the FPS in the game will improve significantly if I switch to 5 GHz. If not, I'll stick with 4.7.
Thanks.
What is your GPU model?
You're unlikely to notice significant differences between 4.7Ghz and 5Ghz, and probably not even a noticeable gap between 4.5Ghz and 5.0Ghz.
Are you wondering if your monitor is overclocked or brand new? It's rare to find monitors with a 240hz refresh rate. Nonetheless, at 5Ghz your CPU probably won't last very long. It's probably best to keep things as they are and 300mhz won't significantly impact performance.
Darkbreeze :
Your monitor might be overclocked or brand new. Very few screens offer a 240hz refresh rate. But at 5Ghz, your CPU probably won’t last long anyway. Staying put seems safer, and 300mhz won’t really change much in performance.
Five years versus twenty? Most fans have upgraded during this period. My model runs at 5.0ghz, though I might have been lucky. It stays stable around 1.345v. At 1.295vcore it works smoothly at 4.8ghz. Reaching 5ghz is a big leap, but still well below the recommended 1.4v. The only issue was with stability tests using prime95—it hit 90°C dangerously close. Since the TJMax is 95°C (down from 100C), I decided to power it down after 15 minutes. While gaming, I’ve seen temps go up to 78°C in BF1.
CPU could potentially last five years at 5Ghz, but achieving such performance is highly improbable for most users. The voltage needed for a stable 5Ghz operation would quickly cause wear on motherboard regulators and the CPU itself. If you can't run Prime95 version 26.6 for 24 hours without overheating or crashing, your setup isn't stable or thermally compliant at 5Ghz. Running versions other than 26.6 that use AVX instructions makes compliance difficult; try again with 26.6. You don’t need to focus on AVX compliance unless you regularly run apps relying heavily on those instructions—then consider further tuning for compliance.
You continue to think that. Data integrity remains the same as it was years ago. Simply because a system fails doesn’t mean it’s unstable; 15 minute runs only verify thermal performance.
This is something most experienced overclockers and enthusiasts agree on. Fifteen minutes won’t reveal anything about long-term stability. The effort you put into testing only risks adding tiny errors and hidden data loss, especially if the data isn’t critical or builds up over time.
Silent data corruption from unstable settings or out-of-spec performance is a known issue. It’s not new—it’s just part of the reality. I’ve seen it time and again, whether you’re talking about 1982 or today. No program or expert with more experience can claim otherwise without extensive testing.
For gaming systems, it doesn’t matter much. You don’t care about long-term data integrity since there’s rarely anything critical being written or overwritten. But for operating systems and supporting files, it matters. For non-gaming tasks or productivity apps, it’s a significant concern.
There’s solid evidence that micro-errors and silent corruption often explain reported software bugs, faulty drivers, and file or OS issues—even on non-overclocked systems, but at much higher rates on overclocked ones without proper checks.
On average, about one in every 1,016 bits gets corrupted during a standard test. On unverified overclocked systems, that rate jumps to four to twenty times higher. This is recent data, not just old theory.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research...ingale.pdf