Thank you...

I definately going to do some testing see there anything to gain. If there is nothing to gain, no big deal. I am adding the 2nd gpu mainly for gaming. I am currently span my 3 24" 16:10 monitors across as one big desktop and I often use it as 3 seperate monitor. All I have to do is open something and drag and drop to any one of the 3 monitor. There is a custom profile can be set in the AMD Catayst but I can't get it to work. But no big deal.

I often see people say, don't overclock your system because it will caused Vegas crash bla bla. I often pushed my computer to the the max since day one I built this bad boy. I ran 20 minutes torture test (Prime95) pass no issue. I ran Benching 11.5 Cinebench no issue. The results is 14.25 points is pretty damn good. I run Vegas Pro no issure.

See the last couple of pages, see for yourself.

http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=744843[linl








The above temp are from torture test (Prime95)

Not many people do understand over clocking. I have my system over clocked too and the argument someone made that I should by a faster CPU, sorry but there isn't anything noticeable faster as of now.

Bruce: I can't get mine beyond 4.4, I actually prefer 4.3GHz, but i think it has to do with the Intel motherboard I use. I had it briefly up to 4.6GHz, it was ok with Prime95 for a good 20min test but Vegas still didn't like it. I could put in more cooling but it is already quite noisy when it renders.

The thing I still don't like is preview of 32bit. The 1080 60p footage set at "32bit video levels only" is still not running at Best/Full and "32bit full range" is an no go. Maybe a dual Xeon will do "that" job but the cost is just way out there.

Oldsmoke.

You definately know what you are talking about :) Very true, motherboard play a vey big role in maximun overclockability in a cpu. My mbo are not top of the line but is in the middle. I must admit I 've spent a lot times tweaking my system to find stability. In the end its all GOOD. Sandy Bridge E running 4.0Ghz is still pretty darn good performer. A Xeon 5xxxx serial system can you run in the 10K$ that have turned most people away to a single CPU system. A powerful Xeon system is nice but I can't see myself spent 10K$ unless I won the lottery :).

is there an overclocker chart for idiots somewhere? I'd love to push mine, but safely, and not have to read websites for two weekends to do it.
surely someone has tracked THIS board and THAT cpu work well at THIS basic setting? I have not found this.

My MB has a bunch of OC settings right there in the bios under a tab called "OVERCLOCK" but I fear messing with it.

If your motherboard ash the options already build in then it is quite easy. However, make sure you adequate cooling (preferable liquid), power supply and speedy ram modules.

If you send me a PM with all your technical details I will be happy to look into it.

"is there an overclocker chart for idiots somewhere?"

Yes, many newer motherboards have dual BIOS (for recovering a bricked OC) and automatic overclocking utilities, but even though I have OC'd in the past, most video editors really should not be experimenting with overclocking on your bread and butter PC. If you don't know what 0.1 volts difference can do to the CPU or what RAS or CAS are to memory timing, then you shouldn't be fooling around with overclocking on your editing PC.

Video rendering and encoding are very CPU intense programs, so if you OC for a gaming environment which is RAM and video intensive, you may find your CPU overheating and shutting down about three hours into a four hour render.

In general, gaming and video editing don't mix well because video rendering uses codecs optimized for quality and gaming codecs are optimized for speed. Since a lot of codecs share the same DLL APIs, you can inadvertently be using poor encoding codecs for your videos.

Overclocking is not for everybody, and more importantly not for every chip. I've overclocked pretty much every CPU I've had since 1998 except for my current 4770k. Quite simply I got a dud in the overclocking lottery. I can get it to 4.1 with good stability but what's the point for 200 MHz? After fooling around with it a bit I'm content to accept it at stock. Oh well maybe my next one will be better. I'd feel bad about it except for the fact that I got it for $200 during one of those crazy Microcenter sales.

Bruce, impressive results! You have a good chip AND you know what you are doing.

"The primary risks of overclocking are instability and a possible loss of data, which can be overcome through extensive testing to verify the highest stable speed. This was best summarized by Dr. Thomas Pabst, simply known as Tom, founder of Tom's Hardware Guide:

"Nobody likes system crashes or hangs, but in a professional business environment, avoiding a system crash or hang can be most crucial. It certainly is a fact that you are increasing the probability of system faults by overclocking your CPU. But it is only a probability! If you have just overclocked your system and the first thing you do is use it to start writing your dissertation, don't be surprised if a system crash occurs which causes you to lose all your data. After finishing the overclocking process you have to put your system through a tough and thorough testing procedure. If the system passes all the testing, only then can you talk of successful overclocking and feel confident that everything is working well.""

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/overclocking-guide-part-1,1379-2.html

I'm not sure why anyone would want to OC a system running an NLE. I do a lot of 3D work which is incredibly render intensive and where ongoing stability and reliability means more than a 20% OC especially when renders can last days rather than hours.

Does anyone spend days rendering a VP project? Even when using a significant amount of tracks and FX my VP projects render in hours not days. Unless you're churning out VP project after VP project in a commercial setting I can't see the benefit of OCing. Even then, surely a commercial setup could afford more than one system or networked rendering?

Then there's also the upkeep of a water cooled system to factor in...and the fact that GPU rendering is becoming far more important than relying just on the CPU. All my 3D projects now render through the GPU exclusively - it's only a matter of time before that's a reliable possibility for NLE's.

I think OCing has more to do with an interest in pushing the limits of technology than fast renders. In its own right I think an interest in pushing components to their limits has its place but if it's meant to encourage NLE users who have no OCing experience and are working on projects, often to deadlines, to think that they can buy mid-range components and get them to run reliably like high end ones then that's misleading.

Render time is just one part of it, timeline preview is much more important and that is where you need processing power. Work is so much easier and faster with a fast system otherwise I wouldn't bother.

Most of my projects preview fine on my non-OC'd mid range system. I use a lot of processor intensive FX compositing video and animation in VP12 but haven't found this has a significant impact on previewing projects before rendering. Even if I had the fastest OC'd CPU I still wouldn't rely on preview and would render test sections of the project to ensure the quality of the final render.

I run and own an NLE business based on running VegasPro on a networked server farm of seven workstations. None of these systems are specd for any overclock, and never I do have any issues with preview speed or render times. I might add that many projects are in the most complex case of compositing - so you might conclude that giant CPU power is needed, and that is true.

What I see different from the typical comment from users in this forum about their having to Overclock their systems to be happy - is the approach taken to working on completing projects.

Oveclocking is not a technique used in a business setting.

I would never assume to know the best course of action for anyone other than myself. I give advice, personal experience, and tips but the final decision is of course up to the individual.

Some people overclock, some don't. Both options are valid. If you are good at it and get a good chip you can have a significantly faster/cheaper rig. Most people do it because the "free" MHz is generally there. In addition, when you get to the top of the line chip the only way to get faster is with overclocking.

My $70 Celeron 300A o/c 450 was as fast as a PII costing nearly 10 times as much and it never gave me a moment of trouble. As I mentioned above my current Haswell is a dog and not worth my overclocking time. But many people have good ones that do 10% over stock and more no problem with perfect stability.

The down side is you may spend quite a bit of time learning to overclock, getting a good chip, and making it stable. Only YOU can determine if it is worth your time.

Hulk A++++++++

Well said. OC is not just cruching in number and expected to work right out of the box. Need patience and a lot of times....

...my current Haswell is a dog and not worth my overclocking time.

Haswells run much hotter than the previous Ivy Bridge. This hampers overclocking. Haswell moved a lot of voltage regulation on chip which is probably a/one reason for the extra heat. Then there is the auto voltage boost which gets in the way.

I experimented OC my 4770K a little, but that was mostly for play, and I run stock now.

I agree that if you've got the money to invest in proper cooling and other relatively expensive OCing gear, the time to research and monitor this properly as well as spare cash to buy replacements in case components become damaged through excessive OCing then why not experiment?

Having said that, rather than buying water cooling and specialised cases/fans etc why not put this money towards a better processor? Unless someone has researched how to OC carefully then the risk of ending up with system instability that affects day to day work is not worth taking IMO. Even with proper research there are such a variety of component combinations and OC settings that, even with experienced advice, there is a temptation to push the system to its limits just to get that tantalising extra bit of juice with potentially disastrous consequences. That risk isn't a factor when building a stock system.

I'm referring here to mid to extreme OC's. Most CPU and GPU manufacturers allow a 10% boost through their propriety software now days. But I see little point in even using that.

PM'd ya, OLDSMOKE, thanks!

"Having said that, rather than buying water cooling and specialised cases/fans etc why not put this money towards a better processor? "

You don't need water cooling for oc-ing. I OC just fine with a normal cpu fan.

Furthermore, oc-ing is not what it used to be. You can still do the old style manual stuff, but if you get yourself a nice mobo, you can OC up to 20% automatically at the press of a single button. The mobo does it all for you. It's really not a big issue.

I run my i7 at 4.7Ghz with a stock fan.