Page 1 of 2 12 Last
Results 1 to 25 of 29

  1. Post
    #1

    Overclocking and its benefit?

    I have a Z170i Pro Gaming and a 6600k. I game at 1440p and try to get higher FPS as I have a 165hz monitor.

    I have been getting into BF5 lately but I feel like my rig is showing its age and not running at flash FPS rates.

    In the new year I plan to do a full system upgrade. In the mean time I want to get the AIO that I plan to use in the new build (still haven't chosen one) and run it with my current rig in order to overclock it.

    What are peoples results with overclocking in games like BF? I know that it makes a difference to benchmarks but will it yield a noticeable difference in actual game play?

  2. Post
    #2
    GPU? As it is most likely that holding you back. Run the game at much lower resolution and see what your framerate is like, if it improves, then it should be GPU bottleneck. My Vega 56 runs at 100% and my 6 core 12 thread CPU runs at upto 80% load in BF5.

    Overclocking will have a benefit, but if the GPU is holding back the CPU, then it will be limited.

    1440P high hz will need a 1080Ti.
    Last edited by Fragluton; 29th November 2018 at 6:31 pm.

  3. Post
    #3
    Fragluton wrote:
    GPU? As it is most likely that holding you back. Run the game at much lower resolution and see what your framerate is like, if it improves, then it should be GPU bottleneck. My Vega 56 runs at 100% and my 6 core 12 thread CPU runs at upto 80% load in BF5.

    Overclocking will have a benefit, but it the GPU is holding back the CPU, then it will be limited.
    Shit sorry I was thinking of that while typing and forgot to put it in.

    I have an Asus Strix 1070.

  4. Post
    #4
    Just updated my post a bit, but yeah a 1070 is not going to run high frames @ 1440P, no matter how far you can clock the 6600k (IMO). I usually hover between 90 and 120fps @ 2560x1080 with settings changed to match the below video for high frame rate rather than ultra preset.

    That said, the CPU is probably maxed out too.

    Watch this and change some settings to net more frames.
    https://youtu.be/u7KfrVMOBSU

  5. Post
    #5
    Here is a shot of the counter in game with the settings optimized by Geforce Experience



    So I guess now I decide between 1080ti and 2080

  6. Post
    #6
    uhh clearly the bottleneck is your CPU there, you can squeeze another 25% from your graphics card

  7. Post
    #7
    What monitoring software is that?
    I wouldn't mind seeing my 0.1% lows.

    Concur with OC'ing benefit.
    Give that GPU more to do.

  8. Post
    #8
    AstoriaParanoia wrote:
    What monitoring software is that?
    I wouldn't mind seeing my 0.1% lows.

    Concur with OC'ing benefit.
    Give that GPU more to do.
    Yeah I just googled FPS monitor and that found it. The software is actually really good

    https://fpsmon.com/en/?

  9. Post
    #9
    sorceror wrote:
    uhh clearly the bottleneck is your CPU there, you can squeeze another 25% from your graphics card
    Time for a 9700k you think?

  10. Post
    #10
    I have a somewhat similar setup - 6700k and a Vega 64 and play BF V too. The most alarming thing are your CPU temps, mine has a moderate overclock (4.6ghz @ 1.33v) doesn't exceed 62 degrees celsius using a cheap Cooler Master 240mm AIO.

    It looks like your CPU is thermal throttling (3.9ghz)? Stock 6700k runs at 4ghz. Something is not right with your cooling.

  11. Post
    #11
    6700K is more than enough for BF V. It's basically 95% of a 7700K

    https://www.techspot.com/review/1754...iplayer-bench/

  12. Post
    #12
    Linkzor wrote:
    I have a somewhat similar setup - 6700k and a Vega 64 and play BF V too. The most alarming thing are your CPU temps, mine has a moderate overclock (4.6ghz @ 1.33v) doesn't exceed 62 degrees celsius using a cheap Cooler Master 240mm AIO.

    It looks like your CPU is thermal throttling (3.9ghz)? Stock 6700k runs at 4ghz. Something is not right with your cooling.
    Ummm yeah about that.... I am running in a very slim ITX chassis and the cooler is a tiny little 92mm setup so that kind of makes sense.

    I am building a new system in the new year so what I might do is run out some time today and pickup the AIO that I plan to use on the new system.

    I just have to decide what AIO is best... Any suggestions???

  13. Post
    #13
    sorceror wrote:
    uhh clearly the bottleneck is your CPU there, you can squeeze another 25% from your graphics card
    This, if you CPU is hitting 100% in games, you need a new CPU - with that being said, that's only if your CPU is running at its limit. Your clock speeds are pretty low, there is room to overclock there if you can get the temps sorted

    5ghz 8700k here - BF5 runs at 60% load at 1440p

    But BF5 is quite CPU intensive, most games I've played in the last 6 months use about 20 to 40% CPU load

  14. Post
    #14
    Unknitlemon6855 wrote:
    Ummm yeah about that.... I am running in a very slim ITX chassis and the cooler is a tiny little 92mm setup so that kind of makes sense.

    I am building a new system in the new year so what I might do is run out some time today and pickup the AIO that I plan to use on the new system.

    I just have to decide what AIO is best... Any suggestions???
    That's a pity because the 6700K is a great overclocker.

    As for AIOs, I don't think there is a massive difference between say a $100 one like a Cooler Master ML240L and a $220 one like the NZXT Kraken X52. To be honest, a high end air cooler like a Noctua NH-D15 will probably outperform most 240mm AIOs.

    SirGrim wrote:
    This, if you CPU is hitting 100% in games, you need a new CPU - with that being said, that's only if your CPU is running at its limit. Your clock speeds are pretty low, there is room to overclock there if you can get the temps sorted

    5ghz 8700k here - BF5 runs at 60% load at 1440p

    But BF5 is quite CPU intensive, most games I've played in the last 6 months use about 20 to 40% CPU load
    His CPU is clearly thermal throttling which is the obvious issue here. My 6700k @ 4.6ghz runs BF5 smooth as butter at ultra 1080p. Not sure about 1440p.

  15. Post
    #15
    what makes you think it's thermal throttling? 3.9GHz is the max turbo speed of the 6600k, and a 65-75C temperature range at full utilisation is absolutely normal - I'd say he even has room to overclock.

  16. Post
    #16
    sorceror wrote:
    what makes you think it's thermal throttling? 3.9GHz is the max turbo speed of the 6600k, and a 65-75C temperature range at full utilisation is absolutely normal - I'd say he even has room to overclock.
    LOL my bad, just realised he has a 6600k not a 6700k.......been a long day at work

  17. Post
    #17
    One screenshot isn't going to be an accurate picture of the game performance. The image doesn't look too intensive, so it could explain the GPU usage, at that point. 1% low of 44 is bad, 0.1% low of 19, ouch. For some reason I thought the 6600k was the i7, so would have been performing better. Are you changing case to fit the AIO? Make sure you get an AIO that has mounting kit for a range of sockets, or the ability to fit future sockets.

    Hardware unboxed benchmark shows the 1070 netting an average of 79 fps ultra 1440P, single player. (probably an 8700k, 6 core 12 thread as CPU) For multiplayer 64 player, average is 75fps 1440P ultra with either a 9900K or a 2700X, so both 8 cores 16 threads. A 4 core, 4 thread CPU, no matter the clock speed is going to be struggling sadly.

  18. Post
    #18
    Fragluton wrote:
    One screenshot isn't going to be an accurate picture of the game performance. The image doesn't look too intensive, so it could explain the GPU usage, at that point. 1% low of 44 is bad, 0.1% low of 19, ouch. For some reason I thought the 6600k was the i7, so would have been performing better. Are you changing case to fit the AIO? Make sure you get an AIO that has mounting kit for a range of sockets, or the ability to fit future sockets.

    Hardware unboxed benchmark shows the 1070 netting an average of 79 fps ultra 1440P, single player. (probably an 8700k, 6 core 12 thread as CPU) For multiplayer 64 player, average is 75fps 1440P ultra with either a 9900K or a 2700X, so both 8 cores 16 threads. A 4 core, 4 thread CPU, no matter the clock speed is going to be struggling sadly.
    4 core 4 thread CPU's just ain't enough anymore - even the upcoming game Just Cause 4 won't hit 60fps without a 8 thread i7 at the very least

  19. Post
    #19
    AstoriaParanoia wrote:
    What monitoring software is that?
    I wouldn't mind seeing my 0.1% lows.
    MSI after burner has 1% and .1% lows

  20. Post
    #20
    Fragluton wrote:
    Are you changing case to fit the AIO?
    Yes but I already have a Franctal Define Nano S under the bed right now so don't need to buy a new case. I can mount a 240 AIO up front pretty easy and that should sort out temps for some OC goodness.

  21. Post
    #21
    All good, just thought case being used might limit AIO options, Corsair AIO's seem pretty popular.

  22. Post
    #22
    Unlocked multipliers, spending $100 more on a feature you'll never use properly then later trading it in with someone who has the locked multiplier version for $40 cash.

  23. Post
    #23
    So 90FPS at 1440p is bad and requires a new CPU?

  24. Post
    #24
    I play my game "Armored Warfare" at max settings and it plays well. According to my FPS monitor I am not really stretching my hardware much playing at 1920x1200 (halfway between 1080p and 1440p) on my PC.

    CPU: Core-i7-4790K or ASUS Sabretooth Z97 MB
    GPU: ASUS 1070TI Strix ROG Advanced edition

    Name:  ScreenShot0661.jpg
Views: 65
Size:  558.7 KB

  25. Post
    #25
    KiwiTT wrote:
    I play my game "Armored Warfare" at max settings and it plays well. According to my FPS monitor I am not really stretching my hardware much playing at 1920x1200 (halfway between 1080p and 1440p) on my PC.

    CPU: Core-i7-4790K or ASUS Sabretooth Z97 MB
    GPU: ASUS 1070TI Strix ROG Advanced edition

    Name:  ScreenShot0661.jpg
Views: 65
Size:  558.7 KB
    1920x1200 isn't halfway between 1080p and 1440p. It's just a squarer version of 1080p. 1440p is almost double 1080p. 1200p is like 10% more.

    1920*1080 = 2.1MP
    1920*1200 = 2.3MP
    2560*1440 = 3.7MP

    Vertical resolution gains exponentially at the same aspect ratio, So 2160p (4k) is 4x 1080p. And 4320p (8k) is 16x 1080p.

    Of course this is based on standard monitor sizes, if you had a 4:3 1440p screen then 1200p would in fact very roughly be halfway between 1080 and 1440.