Posted September 08, 2015
rtcvb32: I'd hesitate to overclock. You may get more performance but burning your chip and heavily reducing it's life seems like it's not worth it (to me).
I suppose, do you really NEED more speed? If just having more cores would be better, then go for that, namely the quad or hex core (4-6); Although a lot of programs don't support multiple cores, there are programs for those who know what they're doing to still effectively use most of the processing power. And a number of programs/games/emulators/engines DO use multiple cores when offered a chance.
Personally i've taken to putting my computer's in low power (power saving) which is about 50% processing power. This seems fine for 95% of the tasks i work on, and every so often i have to boost it to balanced.
I decided just to rebuild to something that will run witcher 3 wolfenstein new order. I suppose, do you really NEED more speed? If just having more cores would be better, then go for that, namely the quad or hex core (4-6); Although a lot of programs don't support multiple cores, there are programs for those who know what they're doing to still effectively use most of the processing power. And a number of programs/games/emulators/engines DO use multiple cores when offered a chance.
Personally i've taken to putting my computer's in low power (power saving) which is about 50% processing power. This seems fine for 95% of the tasks i work on, and every so often i have to boost it to balanced.
I just got a heat-sink today the stock intel one is starting to get noisy.
Only thing else i'll do is install windows 7pro. should've done this years ago but never found time to do it, always seemed to need the pc for something. Never liked vista
Good idea using low power mode then moving into balanced when needed