Is laptop overclocking worth it (short answer: no)

Sure, for the SE. But the SG is hampered by it a bit I'd say.

 

Agreed. 980m with some oc will be hampered.

 

Hehe.. I was doing this on 1.15-1.165V.. My big problem is that my card is really reaching it's limit here.. I'm thinking maybe I need to reduce memory OC and OC the core.. I will do some tweaking when I have some time..

Also about PSU, totally agree.. I've never understood why Clevo has cripped it's laptops like P150SM-A by offering 180W PSU's.. It's bloody dumb..

Let me be a bit honest with you.. It is literally impossible to get a proper job nowadays without a masters degree... Especially in the US.. if you have a bachelors, like your experiencing, they will ask for experience.. Like Zymphad said, you honestly need to keep looking, get a few unpaid internships, especially if they're with medium-big sized companies and cross your fingers.. Main thing is don't give up.. I experienced similar problems.. Studied engineering but wanted to do IT in finance.. I managed to get some work experience and got a job with EY.. You have to keep trying..

 

update: just tried the max overclock again and got 6.26% increase above standard, temperatures also very good, can probably push it higher http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/6108950?

 

The thread should be retitled to: Is laptop overclocking worth it? (short answer: sometimes)

Sent from my Nexus 5

 

I think it should be along the lines of: Is laptop overclocking worth it? (Sure, if you have a proper laptop )..

 

Question, though - won't the hardware-based dynamic clocking drop the performance on the card eventually anyway, if you reach the heat thresholds..? That likely what you're getting is initially trading a bit more performance for a short time? I mean, the way things work on normal clocks on laptop cooling still is that the card relies on not being used at 100% efficiency all the time. If it did, it would overheat anyway.

Honestly, don't waste your time working for free for a company in the hopes of getting a foot inside the door, or getting a good reference. Unless it's a contract job, short term project for example, or you know on beforehand how the process will move towards getting a specifically and already prepared evaluation -- reject it outright. It's worse than a scam. They won't pay you for your work, and someone else will take the credit if you do something extraordinary. If you do something average but useful, they'll want to keep you occupied and working for free some more. So unless you feel that "Worked at Apple for three months" sounds good on your resume, do something else. Lots of smaller IT-companies will ignore your age and formal qualifications if you actually have a project you can show them that demonstrates what you can do, for example. Meanwhile, larger companies that actually mean business might want to hire someone who can complete products, for some days a week, if you can create a plan for completing a degree in the near future, things like that. Since then they'll be able to work with you without much risk or investment, and see how you're developing, and let you grow into the company. Begging for internships, however - you're better off just making something on your own, or working for free for some open source project, for example. ..Actually that is a good way to test what you can do and where your limitations are as well, if you take it for what it is.

 

There is a big difference between not overclocked and overclocked laptop. This is my 3Dmark11 score from the first benchmark test with my AW17 R1 without overclocking vs last test with overclocking P7094 vs P9319. The difference is over 31%. The only thing that prevents further overclocking and higher score now is the lack of a stronger 330W power supply. http://www.3dmark.com/compare/3dm11/7039194/3dm11/9500485

 

I7-4930mx + thick laptop = extra headroom

 

Overclocking is for benchmarking. Simple as that. It's unnecessary for gaming.

 

Why, more performance is unnecessary in games? Maybe if everyone were playing minesweeper. But what happens when highest settings in Attila or Star Citizen are designed for GPUs of the future?

 

I'll let you know when I have a time machine.

If you need to overclock in order to play a game, your PC is far too weak in the first place. That's like buying a MacBook Pro and complaining about not being able to max out BF4.

 

That's a fundamentally different issue

 

when im playing bf4 with stock 880m, i have to turn all AA off to maintain 60fps with vsync. if i overclock, i can play it with 2xmsaa consistant at 60fps. if i really push it and put a crazy fan under my laptop and play in the cold, easily 4xmsaa full maxed out bf4 60fps. overclocking helps add more fps to use extra options or prevent frame rate dips

 

Yes, but the question in this thread is determining whether it's worth doing so for a negligible difference in FPS. You are over-stressing the GPU for an extra 2-3 FPS, is that worth it?

Never did I say it wouldn't benefit.

 

Hardly negligible. 4x MSAA cuts FPS almost in half.

 

And overclocking gives you that "half" back?

You're decreasing the lifespan of the hardware as well by gaming for countless hours above clocks the card was designed for. You may be lucky and never have issues, but I know there are many, many people who overclock and end up killing their cards.

It's really not worth arguing over. If you want to do it, then do it, lol.

 

Could, if you have an 850M/860M or 970M that can OC by 50%.

I think most people who OC are well aware of the risks.

 

You don't need to overclock to play a game. That's all I'm saying, lol.

 

No. It's your opinion.

 

So, game developers make those fancy graphics settings menus for no reason? All those options mean nothing, according to you. You're suggesting one should just overclock to play.

<Insert HTWingNut's image here>

Let's be realistic: It's not necessary, it's just optional, and may be beneficial.

 

Of course not you don't need to overclock to play. You don't need a 970m or 980m to play. You can play with integrated graphics. I agree overclocking has limited value when you own a top end GPU within a year of release or so but down the line raising your minimum FPS at reasonable detail is what you'll want, and a slight OC bump is enough to make it enjoyable or not. I'd rather have 30FPS minimum than 20-22FPS any day...

 

They make them because PC is not a fixed hardware platform like console. Everything else is a matter of opinion and personal preference.

 

@HTWingNut,

Yeah, I agree. It can be beneficial. Never said it wouldn't or couldn't be, just that it's not necessary. And of course whether or not it's "worth" it is up for the individual to decide. I'd say the majority don't feel it's worth the risk to play a game, and it's safe to say the same group would probably say they'd prefer doing so (or that it makes more sense to do so) for benchmarking.

 

obviously the frame rate changes, but it can stay at 4xmsaa for the most part except during explosions. it makes the game play better. i normally just keep it at 2xmsaa when max overclock. and i doubt anyone cares about the life span of the evil 880m lol

 

Surprised you're even willing to overclock that thing. Guess you kill two birds with one stone: cook dinner and play BF4.

 

I have actually had to overclock my 280M to play some games in the past, because 1366 x 768 @ minimum graphics was sub-30fps. So.....
it can be necessary. XD

 

Well, at that point it's necessary to upgrade. I'm not referring to hardware that came out in the 80's.*

*@Octiceps: Obviously an over exaggeration for the purpose of humor.

 

XD well that was in 2012, so my machine was 3 years old and I had bought top-end hardware at the time, so... XD. Yeah.

 

i had to get ic diamond and extra copper cooling and max fans with a laptop cooler. still gets in low 90s lol

 

Wow. Hate that card.

 

Holy...

 

You should do standup

 

I know, right.

There are only 10 types of people in the world: those that understand binary and those that don’t.

#SoldOut

 

yup. first ever gaming laptop. i was naive

 

I'm not even into benchmarking but I overclock. I do it so I can have an overall better gaming experience. Overclocking is not just for benchmarking. You can use overclocking to achieve lots of different things.
My last system I had before the one I have now overclocking made the difference from bearly being able to play a game to playing the game enjoyable.
And not all of us can afford to have the latest and greatest so we make the best of what we got . And to do that we overclock.

 

Hmmm well until they make a laptop GPU that can 1080p 60fps everything then I will continue to overclock. And by the time that comes around, 4K will have really taken off, thus making it a never ending battle against game developer's ever rising minimum requirements.

Sent from my Nexus 5

 

Yeah I will admit when I run games that require a single GPU, I usually set my GPU to 1058/6000 for better performance. Unless it's a pretty graphically unintensive game, that is. Hell, I've gotten 1110/6000 stable in BF4 on single GPU just for kicks. If this was a single GPU machine I would probably never run my card under 1006/6000

 

If you overclock your graphics card, you can skip a generation (maybe 2) of GPU without a major loss of fps in games. Very smart to do this if you buy a graphics card that is launched as a completely new graphics architecture and can deliver perhaps 30-40% more performance compared to previous generation. Who'd need to buy a gtx880m, when they already had a gtx780m as they overclocked and could deliver better fps than an original gtx880m .. Clear that if you overclock your video card can be profitable ..

 

But overclocking the 780M still isn't necessary to play a game, that's what's being debated here. Necessary means you need to. It means it is required. Not optional. Pretty sure you already know this.

I agree with you, that it's more wise to overclock a 780M for better performance than to purchase an inferior card for a negligible difference in performance. But that's something different.

 

Heh, the OP probably didn't know you can OC memory on laptops.

My GSkill is OC to 2400 13-13-13-31 tRFC 313 T1.

 

You're not telling the whole story without including what overclocking the 880M would do. Let's discount the complaints about the 880M, it's probably safer due to nvidia snafu to use the 980M

 

Also his assertion not quite right. I've noticed with OC you can skip 1 generation. Since often it seems by 2nd generation even if it based on the same core, they must have done something different so it's faster even if you OC. That's my observation at least.

 

The discussion is " Is laptop overclocking *WORTH* it", not really necessary. It can prolong the life of the use of the GPU/laptop considering most top end GPU's with some voltage bump can run 30-40% OC. It may not be the best solution but if you're holding out for "the next best thing" and need to get by another 6-9 months, why not overclock? In a year 780m users will likely want to OC their cards to run the next gen games.

 

Was referring to the last page, not the entirety of the thread.

 

Although you can overclock the graphics card that will be launched a year after your purchase, it becomes very expensive to buy a new graphics card for $ 850 ($ 1,700 with sli) every year. It's smart and extend the life of your graphics card with one or maybe two years if you overclock the graphics card and get acceptable fps in gaming.