Return to Answer

I am looking for facts that support overclocking gives more performance vs costs then buying better hardware.

There are no “facts” to a question like this other than the fact that cheaper equipment costs less and over clocking allows one to squeeze more performance out of equipment they paid less money for.

The problem is this question is ultimately opinion based and can absolutely never be answered succinctly due to the variation in the way people use computers and what they are trying to achieve. In some magically world with cost being the same for fast and slow chips, what do you think people would get? Fast chips. So the whole desire to “overclock” is to buy something at a low price and give yourself the same performance as someone purchasing a component at a high price.

For example, in the early 2000s I still had desktop PowerMac G3 that was well known for the upgradability. Given the fact that Apple upgrades were costly, it economically made sense for me to continually upgrade that grey box until PowerMac G3’s became fairly useless. Also, my day job includes tinkering with tech so this gave be a hobby machine I could play with. And heck, the PowerMac G3’s could easily be overclocked with simple jumper settings; buy a 233 Ghz machine and then a few jumper settings later have it running at 266 Ghz.

Nowadays, I have a Mac Mini. And have used various models of Mac Minis for years. The most I would have to upgrade is the RAM. Because for the type of work I do, this machine is fast enough and solid enough. No need to tinker with hardware anymore for me!

Also, the value of over clocking/tweaking comes into play when dealing with work environments. For example, yes you might know a way to boost the performance on a dull and boring Dell desktop. But the second you do that you void the warranty. And in an office setting a temporarily “speedy” machine dying can lead to lost productivity due to unforeseen downtime.

I am looking for facts that support overclocking gives more performance vs costs then buying better hardware.

There are no “facts” to a question like this other than the fact that cheaper equipment costs less and overclocking allows one to squeeze more performance out of equipment they paid less money for.

The problem is this question is ultimately opinion based and can absolutely never be answered succinctly due to the variation in the way people use computers and what they are trying to achieve. In some magically world with cost being the same for fast and slow chips, what do you think people would get? Fast chips. So the whole desire to “overclock” is to buy something at a low price and give yourself the same performance as someone purchasing a component at a high price.

For example, in the early 2000s I still had desktop PowerMac G3 that was well known for the upgradability. Given the fact that Apple upgrades were costly, it economically made sense for me to continually upgrade that grey box until PowerMac G3’s became fairly useless. Also, my day job includes tinkering with tech so this gave be a hobby machine I could play with. And heck, the PowerMac G3’s could easily be overclocked with simple jumper settings; buy a 233 Mhz machine and then a few jumper settings later have it running at 266 Mhz.

Nowadays, I have a Mac Mini. And have used various models of Mac Minis for years. The most I would have to upgrade is the RAM. Because for the type of work I do, this machine is fast enough and solid enough. No need to tinker with hardware anymore for me!

Also, the value of over clocking/tweaking comes into play when dealing with work environments. For example, yes you might know a way to boost the performance on a dull and boring Dell desktop. But the second you do that you void the warranty and if the machine fails who will fix it? And in an office setting a temporarily “speedy” machine dying can lead to lost productivity due to unforeseen downtime.

I am looking for facts that support overclocking gives more performance vs costs then buying better hardware.

There are no “facts” to a question like this other than the fact that cheaper equipment costs less and over clocking allows one to squeeze more performance out of cheaper equipment.

The problem is this question is ultimately opinion based and can absolutely never be answered succinctly due to the variation in the way people use computers and what they are trying to achieve. In some magically world with cost being the same for fast and slow chips, what do you think people would get? Fast chips. So the whole desire to “overclock” is to buy something at a low price and give yourself the same performance as someone purchasing a component at a high price.

For example, in the early 2000s I still had desktop PowerMac G3 that was well known for the upgradability. Given the fact that Apple upgrades were costly, it economically made sense for me to continually upgrade that grey box until PowerMac G3’s became fairly useless. Also, my day job includes tinkering with tech so this gave be a hobby machine I could play with. And heck, the PowerMac G3’s could easily be overclocked with simple jumper settings; buy a 233 Ghz machine and then a few jumper settings later have it running at 266 Ghz.

Nowadays, I have a Mac Mini. And have used various models of Mac Minis for years. The most I would have to upgrade is the RAM. Because for the type of work I do, this machine is fast enough and solid enough. No need to tinker with hardware anymore for me!

Also, the value of over clocking/tweaking comes into play when dealing with work environments. For example, yes you might know a way to boost the performance on a dull and boring Dell desktop. But the second you do that you void the warranty. And in an office setting a temporarily “speedy” machine dying can lead to lost productivity due to unforeseen downtime.

I am looking for facts that support overclocking gives more performance vs costs then buying better hardware.

There are no “facts” to a question like this other than the fact that cheaper equipment costs less and over clocking allows one to squeeze more performance out of equipment they paid less money for.

The problem is this question is ultimately opinion based and can absolutely never be answered succinctly due to the variation in the way people use computers and what they are trying to achieve. In some magically world with cost being the same for fast and slow chips, what do you think people would get? Fast chips. So the whole desire to “overclock” is to buy something at a low price and give yourself the same performance as someone purchasing a component at a high price.

For example, in the early 2000s I still had desktop PowerMac G3 that was well known for the upgradability. Given the fact that Apple upgrades were costly, it economically made sense for me to continually upgrade that grey box until PowerMac G3’s became fairly useless. Also, my day job includes tinkering with tech so this gave be a hobby machine I could play with. And heck, the PowerMac G3’s could easily be overclocked with simple jumper settings; buy a 233 Ghz machine and then a few jumper settings later have it running at 266 Ghz.

Nowadays, I have a Mac Mini. And have used various models of Mac Minis for years. The most I would have to upgrade is the RAM. Because for the type of work I do, this machine is fast enough and solid enough. No need to tinker with hardware anymore for me!

Also, the value of over clocking/tweaking comes into play when dealing with work environments. For example, yes you might know a way to boost the performance on a dull and boring Dell desktop. But the second you do that you void the warranty. And in an office setting a temporarily “speedy” machine dying can lead to lost productivity due to unforeseen downtime.

I am looking for facts that support overclocking gives more performance vs costs then buying better hardware.

The problem is this question is ultimately opinion based and can absolutely never be answered succinctly due to the variation in the way people use computers and what they are trying to achieve. In some magically world with cost being the same for fast and slow chips, what do you think people would get? Fast chips. So the whole desire to “overclock” is to buy something at a low price and give yourself the same performance as someone purchasing a component at a high price.

For example, in the early 2000s I still had desktop PowerMac G3 that was well known for the upgradability. Given the fact that Apple upgrades were costly, it economically made sense for me to continually upgrade that grey box until PowerMac G3’s became fairly useless. Also, my day job includes tinkering with tech so this gave be a hobby machine I could play with. And heck, the PowerMac G3’s could easily be overclocked with simple jumper settings; buy a 233 Ghz machine and then a few jumper settings later have it running at 266 Ghz.

Nowadays, I have a Mac Mini. And have used various models of Mac Minis for years. The most I would have to upgrade is the RAM. Because for the type of work I do, this machine is fast enough and solid enough. No need to tinker with hardware anymore for me!

Also, the value of over clocking/tweaking comes into play when dealing with work environments. For example, yes you might know a way to boost the performance on a dull and boring Dell desktop. But the second you do that you void the warranty. And in an office setting a temporarily “speedy” machine dying can lead to lost productivity due to unforeseen downtime.

I am looking for facts that support overclocking gives more performance vs costs then buying better hardware.

There are no “facts” to a question like this other than the fact that cheaper equipment costs less and over clocking allows one to squeeze more performance out of cheaper equipment.

The problem is this question is ultimately opinion based and can absolutely never be answered succinctly due to the variation in the way people use computers and what they are trying to achieve. In some magically world with cost being the same for fast and slow chips, what do you think people would get? Fast chips. So the whole desire to “overclock” is to buy something at a low price and give yourself the same performance as someone purchasing a component at a high price.

For example, in the early 2000s I still had desktop PowerMac G3 that was well known for the upgradability. Given the fact that Apple upgrades were costly, it economically made sense for me to continually upgrade that grey box until PowerMac G3’s became fairly useless. Also, my day job includes tinkering with tech so this gave be a hobby machine I could play with. And heck, the PowerMac G3’s could easily be overclocked with simple jumper settings; buy a 233 Ghz machine and then a few jumper settings later have it running at 266 Ghz.

Nowadays, I have a Mac Mini. And have used various models of Mac Minis for years. The most I would have to upgrade is the RAM. Because for the type of work I do, this machine is fast enough and solid enough. No need to tinker with hardware anymore for me!

Also, the value of over clocking/tweaking comes into play when dealing with work environments. For example, yes you might know a way to boost the performance on a dull and boring Dell desktop. But the second you do that you void the warranty. And in an office setting a temporarily “speedy” machine dying can lead to lost productivity due to unforeseen downtime.