July 12, 20169 yr I've got an i7 3770K that's stable at 4.4 GHz, which is the maximum I've been able to get it on air cooling. I was wondering, since I'm quite tempted to buy a GTX 1080 to replace my current 2x GTX 670 SLI cards, is there any point in also buying a water cooler and taking the CPU higher? I assume it's a fairly good chip if I've been able to get it that high on air, but if I could get another 300-400 MHz or whatever, would that make any appreciable difference? Water coolers are expensive!
July 12, 20169 yr You would around net 1-2 fps. I9 12900K @5.2Ghz 64 GB DDR4, RTX 4090, Win 11 Pro, 15 TB on 5 SSD's
July 12, 20169 yr Water cooled Titan X here running a 32" Samsung TV on HDMI and a 19" ACE monitor and I have a 1200 watt PSU. Runs like a charm. With PSUs you should always buy looking to the future. I had the 1200 watt with a GTX 770 knowing that with improved graphics comes higher power demand. Processor is i7 870 @ only 2.93 GHz. Smooth as a babies bum at 30 FPS.
July 12, 20169 yr I've got an i7 3770K that's stable at 4.4 GHz, which is the maximum I've been able to get it on air cooling. I was wondering, since I'm quite tempted to buy a GTX 1080 to replace my current 2x GTX 670 SLI cards, is there any point in also buying a water cooler and taking the CPU higher? I assume it's a fairly good chip if I've been able to get it that high on air, but if I could get another 300-400 MHz or whatever, would that make any appreciable difference? Water coolers are expensive! Why push it that hard? You are right, 3770 @ 4.4 is pretty good.. enjoy it! Bert
July 12, 20169 yr I've got an i7 3770K that's stable at 4.4 GHz, which is the maximum I've been able to get it on air cooling. I was wondering, since I'm quite tempted to buy a GTX 1080 to replace my current 2x GTX 670 SLI cards, is there any point in also buying a water cooler and taking the CPU higher? I assume it's a fairly good chip if I've been able to get it that high on air, but if I could get another 300-400 MHz or whatever, would that make any appreciable difference? Water coolers are expensive! 4.4 is fine no need to burn up your chip,heat isn't the only issue so is voltage. The lower your voltage the longer it will last my 4790k is a 4.5ghz at 1.15v (which is lower than the default boost clock voltage) and I won't push it past that even though I could probably get into the high 4.x range maybe even 5ghz with more voltage, The small fps boost isn't worth stressing my cpu ATP MEL,CFI,CFII,MEI. Type Ratings B-737, ERJ-190,ERJ-170
July 12, 20169 yr Author Thanks chaps, I reckon I'll give the water cooler a miss then. Just need to wait until there are some Mac drivers for the 1080 (this PC is Mac OS for work, Windows for fun).
July 14, 20169 yr This would probably vary from system to system but 4.2ghz to 4.7ghz netted me about 6-8 fps. Which made the difference between smooth and laggy experiences. You will see a bigger difference with higher settings/loads with overclocking. The more stress you put on it the more gains it shows. However if you run low to medium settings then it's not worth the trouble. Shanan ASUS Z170 PRO, I7 6700K @ 4.85ghz (HT ON), ZOTAC AMP EXTREME 1080TI GTX (OC), 16 GB DDR4 G.SKILL TRIDENTZ RGB @ 3230MHZ CL 16-17-17-33 (OC) 4X SSDS : WIN 10 (NVME 960 EVO) + P3D + OTHER GAMES, 2X WD BLACKS RAID 0 + 1 SEAGATE BARRACUDA, CORSAIR AX860i PSU, CORSAIR 760T CASE (BLACK), 27 INCH IPS PREDATOR GSYNC 165HZ 1440p + 24 INCH IPS DELL 1080p, THRUSTMASTER HOTAS FCS THROTTLE + FCS16000M CORSAIR K95 RGB + CORSAIR M65 RGB + CORSAIR MM800 POLARIS RGB, CORSAIR H115i v2, CREATIVE GIGAWORKS 7.1 + ASUS D2X XONAR
July 15, 20169 yr Going from 4.4 to 4.7 GHz is a ~7% higher clock speed, so that's the absolute maximum increase of FPS that you can expect. So if you were getting 25 FPS at 4.4 GHz, under ideal circumstances (no other bottlenecks), 4.7 GHz would give you about 26.7 FPS. -
Create an account or sign in to comment