# Opinion about my question being opinion based

I have this question "https://superuser.com/questions/849352/is-it-worth-overclocking?noredirect=1#comment1120959_849352" where I base this question on a factional example. I am looking for facts that support overclocking gives more performance vs costs then buying better hardware. I did some more research but really cannot find a reason other then bragging rights and coolness to overclocking which obviously are opinion based so I made clear to rule those out in my question.

In my opinion it is a very interesting question since a lot of people want or do overclock there systems just for performance sake. With the research i did the past couple of hours I could break that apart by just saying "Buy better hardware, it saves you money and a lot of hassle".

• This question is not about how much money someone has to spent.
• This question is not about ancient hardware.
• This question is not about the joy of overcloking as a hobby.
• This question is not about the bragging rights of overclocking skills.

I have 300 euro to spent should I:

• Buy a cheap mobo and a good processor.

or

• Should I buy a cheap processor but an expensive mobo, cooling system and case to overclock the CPU?

My findings, based on video's and blogs are that just buying a better CPU is the winner in performance AND price AND time. Overclocking is only a personal preference for bragging rights and time killing based on the FACTS I found.

• as a side comment , there are all manners and levels of overclocking, the question up front makes "requirements" that have not been nessisary in huge numbers of cases of overclocking. There has been overclocking of the unclockable via software, and certannly many many people overclocking on air. People have overclocked lowly motherboards with little special capability, and have also bought extreeme overclocking boards and got little more speed for it. Many people exist "overclocking" that brag for how they didnt overvoltage, how they do not have water. DVs could come a lot of assuming in the Q – Psycogeek Dec 8 '14 at 11:40
• Agreed, but are there manners to overclock to save money over performance? Yes you can squeeze a couple % on air with a cheapish mb. And yes the amount to overclock is luck based. But there can still roll out facts out of research from this. It is called science. – Madmenyo Dec 8 '14 at 19:47
• The "opinion-based" flag isn't about whether it's possible to provide fact-based answers. Good, fact-based answers can be provided on almost any question. The issue can be more that the nature of the question or subject may be a lightning rod for opinion-based answers, even if the question includes a warning that only fact-based, or research-based, answers are acceptable. It can be a real challenge to word a question in a way that effectively focuses it and discourages bad answers. – fixer1234 Dec 14 '14 at 7:51

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 posted one out of 4 thoroughly researched cases where I came to the conclusion it was more beneficial to buy better hardware then buying the extra equipment to overclock properly. That are facts. My research shows that overclocking a $100 processor costs more then buying a slightly more expensive processor that is faster then the cheaper one. – Madmenyo Dec 8 '14 at 11:51 • @MennoGouw “That are facts.” No they are not. It doesn’t matter how thoroughly you have researched this, the reality is tweaking is a subjective endeavor based more on a tweaker/hacker’s desire to explore. And you say it costs more? Well how about this: I hate taking formal classes that might cost me$10,000 to learn how hardware works. Well for less than $500 I can build, hack, tweak and overclock a PC on my own. Thus I have now—on paper—saved$9,500. In my opinion that is a real value/savings. But it is still subjective to my desire to overclock and why I would engage in such a task. – JakeGould Dec 8 '14 at 18:58
• Sometimes on se it is impossible to explain something. I A and i have B i calculate C from it and people say it is not a fact. My research example yields a fact otherwise you are ignorant. I want price performance answers not subjective thing why one would overclock continue being ignorant. I already know it costs me less money for a better system vs more money for a lesser overclocked system based on facts. Just looking for examples that question my research. Befor you say that I am ignorant, i concur with what everyone says, there are a million reasons to overclock. But the reason that it – Madmenyo Dec 8 '14 at 19:23
• @MennoGouw I never said you are ignorant. In contrast you are calling me ignorant when you state, “My research example yields a fact otherwise you are ignorant.” None of the research you describe are “facts” and subjective topics like this are not misunderstood because of “ignorance.” The reality is your inability to understand this is the main reason topics like this are considered subjective; if you consider someone else’s opinion on the value of over clocking to be “ignorance” then that is the beginning, middle and end of the discussion. – JakeGould Dec 8 '14 at 19:25
• I am giving a fact in the original question. (Price A / performance A) - (price B/performance B) = factional result. I have 5 more of these that are in favor of buying better hardware. I am not asking about opinions, i hoped i made that clear by now. I am looking for facts that show overclocking would be cheaper then buying better hardware, i cannot find any and since nobody can post examples like i did i pretty much have my answer. – Madmenyo Dec 8 '14 at 19:39
• Perhaps an alternative approach would have been to reopen the question and essentially repeat what's said here, as an answer. But it would have the same effect (minus the "closed question" part). – slhck Dec 9 '14 at 6:18