Daily use: compare full overclocking versus adjusting by core frequency.
Daily use: compare full overclocking versus adjusting by core frequency.
Hey guys this is something that I've never seen a discussion on so I'm curious what the community thought is. Nearly all the overclocking guides, articles, videos etc around are all about 'max stable all-core overclock' settings which makes sense for highest benchmark scores etc, and even back when we were only gaming on 2, 4 or even 6 core CPUs. With my own 16 core rig, I do the usual max-all-core OC only for outdoor winter benchmarking partly because this 7960x can pull over 400w by itself at 5.2ghz all core and partly because I don't see a need to run 16 cores screaming fast when the majority of the time I don't hit more than 8-10 of them at the same time. Because of that, for daily use I just do a 'by core usage' OC, that way only the cores that are working will boost up - less power draw, less heat etc means (I think) stable and relatively quiet. Now that the mainstream is starting to push 8-16 cores, do you think that a 'by core usage' OC for daily use makes more sense since even games are still not generally hammering that many cores together at once?
I usually adjust overclocks per core rather than applying them all at once, since it offers more precision and efficiency. When running a game that only needs six threads on my twelve-core i7, I aim to extract a bit more performance. I also have the option to use lower voltage settings to achieve the desired speed, allowing me to set a solid baseline for regular use while reserving higher speeds for intense workloads.
I'm testing the system by running it. If it fails, I'll gradually boost the power and attempt again. Currently on my 7960x, it's only reaching 4.7ghz under core usage with 1.2v, staying below 40°C during regular tasks. Cinebench R20 does crash, but it never causes problems during typical daily activities like studying, gaming, or managing multiple VMs at once.