Building my first PC, should I bother with overclocking?
Building my first PC, should I bother with overclocking?
Buy good enough parts that you don't need to overclock them. Then years down the road, if game requirements surpass your hardware, then overclock it.
Overclocking is a meme, the factory clocks are lowered so they can make cheaper, shittier stock heatsinks.
no. the benefits to overclocking are marginal at best. if your CPU is bottlenecking your GPU, you need a new CPU.
They don't put 3 fans and a waterblock on a gpu for show.
There's nothing to lose, there's no point in not overclocking. That applies to cpus as well.
What CPU?
Overclocking helps with minimum fps in games.
6400 probably with a RX 480 8 GB
nah, get SSDs
>Sup Forums humour
Depends on what your general build is.
For example if you have the right processor you can squeeze enough performance out of it you could save £40 on buying what would be the next tier up.
An aftermarket cooler is a near necessity anyway so price it right and it;s a free upgrade, as for the degredation of the processor from oc'ing it will be obsolete long before it blows from an OC. Not obsolete in ricer terms 2-3 years but a more sane 4-6.
Now I went batshit with my Noctua NH D 15 at £45 but I'm pulling 4.3ghz on a 3.5 ghz i5 4690k, but compare the price of a an i7 4790k and the saving is in itself.
No. If you're buying current gen stuff there's absolutely zero need for overclocking. Hell, I have a 2nd PC with an older-gen i7 in it from 6+ years ago, stock clocked and it's still plenty for most tasks.
Any of the newer i5 and i7's, you'd have to be retarded to overclock for the marginal and pointless performance increase at the cost of heat and lifespan. It's just an e-peen meme thing, no actual benefit.
YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO WAIT FOR ZEN
If you're asking, nah. Feel free to make it capable of overclocking if you want to dabble in it, but it's far from necessary and skimping on shit just to add OC capability is a bad idea.
Benefits of overclocking on most CPUs are so marginal it's not worth the effort. Boosted an AMD CPU a full gigahertz and a very small amount of programs actually saw any gains.
What do you think right now?
Okay someone said I should switch to the H170 but the Z170 is the same price for me so...
>canada
Sucks for you bro.
I just got
>i5 6600k - $200
>evo 212 - $25
>Asrock pro4s - $55
>rx480 - $295
being canadian is suffering
Do not get the reference rx 480gb.
It's bloody loud. How's the pricing in regards to 1060/ 480 in your area?
the price is identical
sorry, what does reference mean?
How do you figure out bottlenecking?
See how the card only has one fan? It means teh barebones prototype design in a way compared to say this.
It costs about 40-50 dollars more in Canada for some reason. Is it still worth it?
no
look at your system monitering application of choice
if you're CPU is maxed out at 100% and 120 degrees but your GPU is barely breaking a sweat, then you need a new CPU
he's not wrong
booting in 3 seconds is great
Nah, I was just using as an example, just don't go for one with only one fan.
Honestly depending on a few things you may be better off getting a 1060. AMD's 480's are not all that brilliant due to price ratio in some regions.
The Nitro is a bit loud, but less hot and loud than a reference. XFX, and power color are less reputable but also quieter and less hot.
The Gigabyte rx 480 is a mythical beast.
Okay... um I guess I'm going with this guy:
PNY 1060. Just a few dollars more and has two fans.
problem is choosing a graphics card is difficutl and varies on region. For example this.
Would serve me better than an rx 480 by the time I oc'd it.
1060's stronger than 480 by a bit. I ended up going for 480 anyway even though they were the same price. Just preference at that point. A few other things like freesync, crossfire and more vram. But you really can't go wrong with either.
Yup, very regional differences. In the UK a 480 is pretty pointless at the moment due to most of them having far flung RMA centres.
literally no reason not to these days.