Hmm ok, well I have that exact same motherboard in my PC now, It does overclock quite well. which is what i was assuming you were going to since you chose a full size tower and an unlockable processor. so again a couple questions, are you going to run SLI or water cooling ever?
Well not right away, but it's certainly been a thought. I imagine that eventually (however long eventually is) the prices of the 7970 will drop when newer stuff comes up, and I could always throw in a second one. And I will most likely be OCing the CPU as well. As far as liquid cooling goes, I'm still pretty nervous about that. I have friends who've never once had an issue, and I was told you could get things like fesser, which aren't conductive, but I'd still hate to have something happen with a liquid cooler.
A lot depends on how far you want to overclock. If you want to try for 4.2 GHz, or perhaps as high as you can go without touching the voltage, then the parts you've picked will work nicely. If you want to try for 5 GHz or push the voltage as high as necessary for a maximum overclock, then you'd want a cooler and motherboard better suited to large overclocks.
-----
Don't expect prices on a Radeon HD 7970 to drop all that far, ever. They're big, expensive cards to build. They'll probably be discontinued before they hit $300.
Hmm then this is my suggestion You need a different MOBO because the second PCI express slot is 8x not 16 x , so not the best choice for sli, If you plan on overclocking and possibly going to liquid cooling but nervous about it get an enclosed liquid cooling solution, So heres my modifications,
Does the HAF X have air filters? Most of the HAF line doesn't, so I'd be surprised if the HAF X does. That was the point of moving away from the HAF 932 in the first place.
The motherboard has PCI Express slots wired for x16 and x4 bandwidth, which is markedly worse than x8/x8, even. The problem is that the chipset only has something like 22 or 24 PCI Express lanes, which isn't enough for x16/x16 bandwidth. If you want x16/x16 on an LGA 1155 system, you'd need an extra PCI Express chip to split the bandwidth, and that adds a lot of cost. There are a few motherboards that do that, but they're expensive, so if you really, really wanted that, you'd be better off going with an LGA 2011 system.
But that's a waste of money, because you're probably never going to add the second card, anyway.
Hmm ok, well I have that exact same motherboard in my PC now, It does overclock quite well. which is what i was assuming you were going to since you chose a full size tower and an unlockable processor. so again a couple questions, are you going to run SLI or water cooling ever?
Well not right away, but it's certainly been a thought. I imagine that eventually (however long eventually is) the prices of the 7970 will drop when newer stuff comes up, and I could always throw in a second one. And I will most likely be OCing the CPU as well. As far as liquid cooling goes, I'm still pretty nervous about that. I have friends who've never once had an issue, and I was told you could get things like fesser, which aren't conductive, but I'd still hate to have something happen with a liquid cooler.
A lot depends on how far you want to overclock. If you want to try for 4.2 GHz, or perhaps as high as you can go without touching the voltage, then the parts you've picked will work nicely. If you want to try for 5 GHz or push the voltage as high as necessary for a maximum overclock, then you'd want a cooler and motherboard better suited to large overclocks.
-----
Don't expect prices on a Radeon HD 7970 to drop all that far, ever. They're big, expensive cards to build. They'll probably be discontinued before they hit $300.
I figure I may push it as far as 3.8, but if it can go 4.2 nicely then awesome (I still have no clue how to OC, so that's something I'll be looking into how to do, I know there's some programs that can do it for you or you can do it in the BIOS but thats all I know right now, and voltage is not something I'd feel comfortable messing with).
Well as I don't play in (edit)Surround/Eyefinity at the moment one 7970 will do more than it's job. And now I'm looking into that Antec case you linked. I know I could probably go with a mid tower, but I just feel more comfortable having more room, if only slightly. It comes with plenty of fans it seems, dust filters are a definite plus, and will fit the 7970 and the aftermarket cooler it looks like.
Originally posted by Zolgar Also, I was wondering if anyone knew where I could find dust filters for 230mm fans (case doesn't come with any). I found a 140mm filter on Newegg for $12 but I'm not seeing any above that size.
Cut to fit - enough there to do ... I don't know, maybe 20 240mm fans. Hard to beat at under a buck.
Also -
Lian Li PC-8N, it's not a fancy case, but LL cases are top notch, and it has an air filter. They have other full-towers that have air filters too, but a full tower is a big case.
Hmm ok, well I have that exact same motherboard in my PC now, It does overclock quite well. which is what i was assuming you were going to since you chose a full size tower and an unlockable processor. so again a couple questions, are you going to run SLI or water cooling ever?
Well not right away, but it's certainly been a thought. I imagine that eventually (however long eventually is) the prices of the 7970 will drop when newer stuff comes up, and I could always throw in a second one. And I will most likely be OCing the CPU as well. As far as liquid cooling goes, I'm still pretty nervous about that. I have friends who've never once had an issue, and I was told you could get things like fesser, which aren't conductive, but I'd still hate to have something happen with a liquid cooler.
A lot depends on how far you want to overclock. If you want to try for 4.2 GHz, or perhaps as high as you can go without touching the voltage, then the parts you've picked will work nicely. If you want to try for 5 GHz or push the voltage as high as necessary for a maximum overclock, then you'd want a cooler and motherboard better suited to large overclocks.
-----
Don't expect prices on a Radeon HD 7970 to drop all that far, ever. They're big, expensive cards to build. They'll probably be discontinued before they hit $300.
I figure I may push it as far as 3.8, but if it can go 4.2 nicely then awesome (I still have no clue how to OC, so that's something I'll be looking into how to do, I know there's some programs that can do it for you or you can do it in the BIOS but thats all I know right now, and voltage is not something I'd feel comfortable messing with).
Well as I don't play in (edit)Surround/Eyefinity at the moment one 7970 will do more than it's job. And now I'm looking into that Antec case you linked. I know I could probably go with a mid tower, but I just feel more comfortable having more room, if only slightly. It comes with plenty of fans it seems, dust filters are a definite plus, and will fit the 7970 and the aftermarket cooler it looks like.
Nearly all Core i5 2500K dies can hit 4.5 GHz. With some luck, you can push it to around 5 GHz. But that assumes that you've got a motherboard, power supply, and CPU cooler built to handle the large overclock. You should realize that if you push near the maximum that the processor can handle and leave it there long-term, you'll probably damage the processor eventually. If you overclock some, but not near the maximum it can handle, then you're fairly safe. If you don't adjust the voltage at all, but only the clock speed, then you're safe.
You should also realize that Intel's "Turbo Boost" means you get some overclocking done automatically on the fly, even at stock settings. If the processor thinks that you could use more performance and temperatures and power draw are properly in check, then it will go ahead and clock the processor up to 3.7 GHz for as long as those conditions hold. For short periods of time, it may push a single core as high as 4.1 GHz. So if you disable turbo boost and overclock the processor to 3.7 GHz, all you're really doing is making it harder for it to clock down when the extra speed doesn't matter.
Clock speeds from turbo boost will bounce around a lot, too. On an older Lynnfield processor, CPU-Z might report the clock speed changing once per second or so, as the load does. I'd assume that Sandy Bridge processors adjust the clock speed at least that often, and possibly more so. And it might just be that CPU-Z doesn't check the processor speed as often as it changes, and doesn't report all of the changes. AMD says that that does happen with their "Turbo Core".
TurboBoost basically works as an automatic on the Originally posted by Quizzical
Originally posted by Zolgar
Originally posted by Quizzical
Originally posted by Zolgar
Originally posted by Caponestyle
Hmm ok, well I have that exact same motherboard in my PC now, It does overclock quite well. which is what i was assuming you were going to since you chose a full size tower and an unlockable processor. so again a couple questions, are you going to run SLI or water cooling ever?
Well not right away, but it's certainly been a thought. I imagine that eventually (however long eventually is) the prices of the 7970 will drop when newer stuff comes up, and I could always throw in a second one. And I will most likely be OCing the CPU as well. As far as liquid cooling goes, I'm still pretty nervous about that. I have friends who've never once had an issue, and I was told you could get things like fesser, which aren't conductive, but I'd still hate to have something happen with a liquid cooler.
A lot depends on how far you want to overclock. If you want to try for 4.2 GHz, or perhaps as high as you can go without touching the voltage, then the parts you've picked will work nicely. If you want to try for 5 GHz or push the voltage as high as necessary for a maximum overclock, then you'd want a cooler and motherboard better suited to large overclocks.
-----
Don't expect prices on a Radeon HD 7970 to drop all that far, ever. They're big, expensive cards to build. They'll probably be discontinued before they hit $300.
I figure I may push it as far as 3.8, but if it can go 4.2 nicely then awesome (I still have no clue how to OC, so that's something I'll be looking into how to do, I know there's some programs that can do it for you or you can do it in the BIOS but thats all I know right now, and voltage is not something I'd feel comfortable messing with).
Well as I don't play in (edit)Surround/Eyefinity at the moment one 7970 will do more than it's job. And now I'm looking into that Antec case you linked. I know I could probably go with a mid tower, but I just feel more comfortable having more room, if only slightly. It comes with plenty of fans it seems, dust filters are a definite plus, and will fit the 7970 and the aftermarket cooler it looks like.
Nearly all Core i5 2500K dies can hit 4.5 GHz. With some luck, you can push it to around 5 GHz. But that assumes that you've got a motherboard, power supply, and CPU cooler built to handle the large overclock. You should realize that if you push near the maximum that the processor can handle and leave it there long-term, you'll probably damage the processor eventually. If you overclock some, but not near the maximum it can handle, then you're fairly safe. If you don't adjust the voltage at all, but only the clock speed, then you're safe.
You should also realize that Intel's "Turbo Boost" means you get some overclocking done automatically on the fly, even at stock settings. If the processor thinks that you could use more performance and temperatures and power draw are properly in check, then it will go ahead and clock the processor up to 3.7 GHz for as long as those conditions hold. For short periods of time, it may push a single core as high as 4.1 GHz. So if you disable turbo boost and overclock the processor to 3.7 GHz, all you're really doing is making it harder for it to clock down when the extra speed doesn't matter.
Clock speeds from turbo boost will bounce around a lot, too. On an older Lynnfield processor, CPU-Z might report the clock speed changing once per second or so, as the load does. I'd assume that Sandy Bridge processors adjust the clock speed at least that often, and possibly more so. And it might just be that CPU-Z doesn't check the processor speed as often as it changes, and doesn't report all of the changes. AMD says that that does happen with their "Turbo Core".
So unless there's an extremely CPU intensive game that will gain any benefit from 3.8GHz+, there'd be no reason to OC as TurboBoost basically works as an automatic OC?
Is the clock speeds from TB bouncing around a lot a bad thing?
Also, thanks everyone. Ordering today. Still going over my options for cases, but everything else seems set.
So unless there's an extremely CPU intensive game that will gain any benefit from 3.8GHz+, there'd be no reason to OC as TurboBoost basically works as an automatic OC?
Is the clock speeds from TB bouncing around a lot a bad thing?
On the first question, there's also bragging rights. Some people like tinkering with hardware just to see what it can do. There can also be other programs besides games that are extremely processor intensive, but games are probably the only one that gets much general consumer use. But I don't see any performance reason to overclock a processor until you run into some program where you decide that the stock settings aren't performing well enough.
No, it's not at all a bad thing that clock speeds from turbo boost bounce around a lot. The processor will also spend a lot of time running below 3.3 GHz, because it clocks itself down at idle to save power. For that matter, much of the time, the processor will turn off some of its cores to save power.
-----
Let's back up a minute to explain the point of turbo boost. Would you rather have a processor with two faster cores or four slower cores? In programs that can't put more than two cores to good use, two faster cores win. In programs that scale well to four cores, four slower cores win. You'll probably run quite a few of each. Back when the choice was a Core 2 Duo or a Core 2 Quad (or if you went AMD, an Athlon 64 X2 or a Phenom X4), you had to pick one or the other and stick with it.
But Intel came along and said, that's dumb. You shouldn't have to pick one or the other. Maybe a processor with two faster cores has each pull 40 W under a heavy load, and that's safe. The problem is that four cores each pulling 40 W wouldn't be safe with a mediocre motherboard or cooler. So how about if we have four cores, but when we're not using all of them, turn off two of them and clock them higher? That way, you get two faster cores when they're better than four slower cores. You also get four slower cores when they're better than two faster cores. And the processor will switch back and forth on the fly, without you having to do anything.
Turbo boost is actually a good deal more sophisticated than that. It can also leave one or three cores active. If you're not pushing the processor very hard, it might decide to clock them lower to save power. As I type this, CPU-Z says that my processor is mostly running at 1.2 GHz (as compared to a nominal stock speed of 2.8 GHz), since a browser isn't a very heavy load on the processor. Occasionally it spikes up if it decides it needs to do something.
If the processor thinks more performance might be useful, it's not at all hesitant to clock higher. It really tries to err on the side of clocking too high and wasting a bit of power, rather than clocking down at idle. I've never heard of any situations on Windows 7 where someone was having trouble with poor performance because the processor was clocking down at idle. Vista caused some problems by stupidly bouncing threads between cores, but Windows 7 fixed that.
The idea of turbo boost is to get you the benefits of a mild overclock whenever there are any benefits to be had. But it also wants to save power and avoid unnecessary wear and tear on the processor when there aren't any benefits to be had from overclocking.
You can think of turbo boost as being kind of like AMD's PowerTune or Nvidia's GPU Boost for video cards. It's closer to GPU Boost, perhaps, but a lot more important. Graphics workloads don't get lightly threaded loads that can't use all of the shaders, the way that processors commonly run programs that can't put all of the cores to good use. So all that GPU Boost can do is to say, we'll keep everything active, and then clock it higher or lower.
But turbo boost can do a lot more. If your system is built to be safe with a processor using 95 W, then one core using 40 W while the other three are off is completely safe. All four cores using 40 W at once isn't. So turbo boost can often bump the voltage and clock speeds to have one core pull 40 W. Nvidia's GPU Boost doesn't have comparable situations where it's trivially safe to increase the clock speed by quite a bit.
Going with GPU Boost rather than PowerTune does mean there's a slight risk that an extremely heavy workload will pull more than the TDP and fry something. If you use the stock cooler and the cheapest P67/Z68 motherboard you can find, there's likewise a slight risk of frying something when the processor gets an extremely heavy workload. But the problem here isn't what the CPU silicon can handle; it's what the heatsink and motherboard can handle. You get a better motherboard and heatsink (such as what you've linked), and even if something goes wildly awry and the processor pulls 120 W for an extended period of time (as compared to a TDP of 95 W), it doesn't matter. All of the parts can handle that just fine.
You can overengineer video cards like that, too. But GPU silicon tends to be clocked closer to what it can safely handle than CPU silicon. Even if you overengineer the rest of the video card, for a GeForce GTX 680 to pull 250 W for an extended period of time may or may not be all that safe safe.
So unless there's an extremely CPU intensive game that will gain any benefit from 3.8GHz+, there'd be no reason to OC as TurboBoost basically works as an automatic OC?
Is the clock speeds from TB bouncing around a lot a bad thing?
/snip
Thank you so much for the information. It honestly is always a learning experience for me when reading your posts.
I have a question about the COOLER MASTER Hyper 212 Plus. Can that be installed so that the fan faces the back of the case? I was watching some installation guides and it seemed that people clipped the fan onto the the side that faced the front of the case. Will it clip to either side? I'd imagine that it facing the rear exhaust fan would be ideal to get that hot air moving out of the case the fatest. But there's also fans on top of the case. Does it make any difference?
Originally posted by Zolgar So unless there's an extremely CPU intensive game that will gain any benefit from 3.8GHz+, there'd be no reason to OC as TurboBoost basically works as an automatic OC? Is the clock speeds from TB bouncing around a lot a bad thing?
Also, thanks everyone. Ordering today. Still going over my options for cases, but everything else seems set.
In addition to Quiz's well put reply:
Turboboost will "auto overclock" for one or two cores only, but it will only take effect in specific conditions (only a few cores in use, some cores parked, and able to overclock the few cores in use). A real overclock/faster clock speed will affect all conditions.
Bouncing clocks are not bad - the motherboard and CPU are both designed to handle it fine, and you should never even notice it's effects. The CPU will clock down when it's not needed as much (saving power, and producing less heat), and clock up when it is needed. Video cards do the same thing, and this technology is not new, it's been around for a while. It just gets more refined (for example, now chips can actually turn off parts of the chip without powering down the entire chip)
Comments
note this is the best enclosed Liquid cooling solution you can buy , it requires absolutely no maintenance and the pipes create no Humidity
A lot depends on how far you want to overclock. If you want to try for 4.2 GHz, or perhaps as high as you can go without touching the voltage, then the parts you've picked will work nicely. If you want to try for 5 GHz or push the voltage as high as necessary for a maximum overclock, then you'd want a cooler and motherboard better suited to large overclocks.
-----
Don't expect prices on a Radeon HD 7970 to drop all that far, ever. They're big, expensive cards to build. They'll probably be discontinued before they hit $300.
Does the HAF X have air filters? Most of the HAF line doesn't, so I'd be surprised if the HAF X does. That was the point of moving away from the HAF 932 in the first place.
The motherboard has PCI Express slots wired for x16 and x4 bandwidth, which is markedly worse than x8/x8, even. The problem is that the chipset only has something like 22 or 24 PCI Express lanes, which isn't enough for x16/x16 bandwidth. If you want x16/x16 on an LGA 1155 system, you'd need an extra PCI Express chip to split the bandwidth, and that adds a lot of cost. There are a few motherboards that do that, but they're expensive, so if you really, really wanted that, you'd be better off going with an LGA 2011 system.
But that's a waste of money, because you're probably never going to add the second card, anyway.
I figure I may push it as far as 3.8, but if it can go 4.2 nicely then awesome (I still have no clue how to OC, so that's something I'll be looking into how to do, I know there's some programs that can do it for you or you can do it in the BIOS but thats all I know right now, and voltage is not something I'd feel comfortable messing with).
Well as I don't play in (edit)Surround/Eyefinity at the moment one 7970 will do more than it's job. And now I'm looking into that Antec case you linked. I know I could probably go with a mid tower, but I just feel more comfortable having more room, if only slightly. It comes with plenty of fans it seems, dust filters are a definite plus, and will fit the 7970 and the aftermarket cooler it looks like.
0118 999 881 999 119 725... 3
http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10051&langId=-1&catalogId=10053&productId=202318549&R=202318549
Cut to fit - enough there to do ... I don't know, maybe 20 240mm fans. Hard to beat at under a buck.
Also -
Lian Li PC-8N, it's not a fancy case, but LL cases are top notch, and it has an air filter. They have other full-towers that have air filters too, but a full tower is a big case.
NZXT Phantom http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811146068
also a very good case, having one myself i have been exceptionally happy with it
Nearly all Core i5 2500K dies can hit 4.5 GHz. With some luck, you can push it to around 5 GHz. But that assumes that you've got a motherboard, power supply, and CPU cooler built to handle the large overclock. You should realize that if you push near the maximum that the processor can handle and leave it there long-term, you'll probably damage the processor eventually. If you overclock some, but not near the maximum it can handle, then you're fairly safe. If you don't adjust the voltage at all, but only the clock speed, then you're safe.
You should also realize that Intel's "Turbo Boost" means you get some overclocking done automatically on the fly, even at stock settings. If the processor thinks that you could use more performance and temperatures and power draw are properly in check, then it will go ahead and clock the processor up to 3.7 GHz for as long as those conditions hold. For short periods of time, it may push a single core as high as 4.1 GHz. So if you disable turbo boost and overclock the processor to 3.7 GHz, all you're really doing is making it harder for it to clock down when the extra speed doesn't matter.
Clock speeds from turbo boost will bounce around a lot, too. On an older Lynnfield processor, CPU-Z might report the clock speed changing once per second or so, as the load does. I'd assume that Sandy Bridge processors adjust the clock speed at least that often, and possibly more so. And it might just be that CPU-Z doesn't check the processor speed as often as it changes, and doesn't report all of the changes. AMD says that that does happen with their "Turbo Core".
So unless there's an extremely CPU intensive game that will gain any benefit from 3.8GHz+, there'd be no reason to OC as TurboBoost basically works as an automatic OC?
Is the clock speeds from TB bouncing around a lot a bad thing?
Also, thanks everyone. Ordering today. Still going over my options for cases, but everything else seems set.
0118 999 881 999 119 725... 3
Wrong thread lol.
Pardon my English as it is not my 1st language
On the first question, there's also bragging rights. Some people like tinkering with hardware just to see what it can do. There can also be other programs besides games that are extremely processor intensive, but games are probably the only one that gets much general consumer use. But I don't see any performance reason to overclock a processor until you run into some program where you decide that the stock settings aren't performing well enough.
No, it's not at all a bad thing that clock speeds from turbo boost bounce around a lot. The processor will also spend a lot of time running below 3.3 GHz, because it clocks itself down at idle to save power. For that matter, much of the time, the processor will turn off some of its cores to save power.
-----
Let's back up a minute to explain the point of turbo boost. Would you rather have a processor with two faster cores or four slower cores? In programs that can't put more than two cores to good use, two faster cores win. In programs that scale well to four cores, four slower cores win. You'll probably run quite a few of each. Back when the choice was a Core 2 Duo or a Core 2 Quad (or if you went AMD, an Athlon 64 X2 or a Phenom X4), you had to pick one or the other and stick with it.
But Intel came along and said, that's dumb. You shouldn't have to pick one or the other. Maybe a processor with two faster cores has each pull 40 W under a heavy load, and that's safe. The problem is that four cores each pulling 40 W wouldn't be safe with a mediocre motherboard or cooler. So how about if we have four cores, but when we're not using all of them, turn off two of them and clock them higher? That way, you get two faster cores when they're better than four slower cores. You also get four slower cores when they're better than two faster cores. And the processor will switch back and forth on the fly, without you having to do anything.
Turbo boost is actually a good deal more sophisticated than that. It can also leave one or three cores active. If you're not pushing the processor very hard, it might decide to clock them lower to save power. As I type this, CPU-Z says that my processor is mostly running at 1.2 GHz (as compared to a nominal stock speed of 2.8 GHz), since a browser isn't a very heavy load on the processor. Occasionally it spikes up if it decides it needs to do something.
If the processor thinks more performance might be useful, it's not at all hesitant to clock higher. It really tries to err on the side of clocking too high and wasting a bit of power, rather than clocking down at idle. I've never heard of any situations on Windows 7 where someone was having trouble with poor performance because the processor was clocking down at idle. Vista caused some problems by stupidly bouncing threads between cores, but Windows 7 fixed that.
The idea of turbo boost is to get you the benefits of a mild overclock whenever there are any benefits to be had. But it also wants to save power and avoid unnecessary wear and tear on the processor when there aren't any benefits to be had from overclocking.
You can think of turbo boost as being kind of like AMD's PowerTune or Nvidia's GPU Boost for video cards. It's closer to GPU Boost, perhaps, but a lot more important. Graphics workloads don't get lightly threaded loads that can't use all of the shaders, the way that processors commonly run programs that can't put all of the cores to good use. So all that GPU Boost can do is to say, we'll keep everything active, and then clock it higher or lower.
But turbo boost can do a lot more. If your system is built to be safe with a processor using 95 W, then one core using 40 W while the other three are off is completely safe. All four cores using 40 W at once isn't. So turbo boost can often bump the voltage and clock speeds to have one core pull 40 W. Nvidia's GPU Boost doesn't have comparable situations where it's trivially safe to increase the clock speed by quite a bit.
Going with GPU Boost rather than PowerTune does mean there's a slight risk that an extremely heavy workload will pull more than the TDP and fry something. If you use the stock cooler and the cheapest P67/Z68 motherboard you can find, there's likewise a slight risk of frying something when the processor gets an extremely heavy workload. But the problem here isn't what the CPU silicon can handle; it's what the heatsink and motherboard can handle. You get a better motherboard and heatsink (such as what you've linked), and even if something goes wildly awry and the processor pulls 120 W for an extended period of time (as compared to a TDP of 95 W), it doesn't matter. All of the parts can handle that just fine.
You can overengineer video cards like that, too. But GPU silicon tends to be clocked closer to what it can safely handle than CPU silicon. Even if you overengineer the rest of the video card, for a GeForce GTX 680 to pull 250 W for an extended period of time may or may not be all that safe safe.
Thank you so much for the information. It honestly is always a learning experience for me when reading your posts.
0118 999 881 999 119 725... 3
I have a question about the COOLER MASTER Hyper 212 Plus. Can that be installed so that the fan faces the back of the case? I was watching some installation guides and it seemed that people clipped the fan onto the the side that faced the front of the case. Will it clip to either side? I'd imagine that it facing the rear exhaust fan would be ideal to get that hot air moving out of the case the fatest. But there's also fans on top of the case. Does it make any difference?
0118 999 881 999 119 725... 3
Videocard is 27cm those it fit in your case?
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77
CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k
GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now))
MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB
PSU:Corsair AX1200i
OS:Windows 10 64bit
In addition to Quiz's well put reply:
Turboboost will "auto overclock" for one or two cores only, but it will only take effect in specific conditions (only a few cores in use, some cores parked, and able to overclock the few cores in use). A real overclock/faster clock speed will affect all conditions.
Bouncing clocks are not bad - the motherboard and CPU are both designed to handle it fine, and you should never even notice it's effects. The CPU will clock down when it's not needed as much (saving power, and producing less heat), and clock up when it is needed. Video cards do the same thing, and this technology is not new, it's been around for a while. It just gets more refined (for example, now chips can actually turn off parts of the chip without powering down the entire chip)