Is overclocking CPUs normal for developers?

I'm reading how all of these new Core2 Duo's are extremely overclock-able. Should I even consider this or will it be too unstable for development environment?

I am considering getting the up-coming 4300 (9x200MHz) and overclocking it to 333MHz to get 3GHz system out of it. Using DDR2 800 chips. Read on anandtech that they pushed it even further and it surpased the E6800 stock speeds in some areas and tied in the rest.

Anyways, any thoughts?

Well, the thing with Core 2 is it overclocks quite a bit without additional cooling:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/10/10/cheap_thrills/

The internet is dripping with overclocking Core2.

However, I know nothing of this 4300 and as to the potential, or lack of, with overclocking it.

I wouldn't say this is normal for professional game developers - I'd certainly frown upon anyone doing it for me - unless it was for testing.

Does overclocking the latest CPUs even make that much of a difference?

Boy if ever there was a word I wouldn't like to define it's "normal". It's not uncommon among the more computer literate people.

However, I would distinguish between serious developers and hobbyist developers. I tend to think - and I have no specific evidence for this, just gut feeling - that serious developers would tend to avoid anything which might cause odd unexplained and unrepeatable bugs. Those are hell at the best of times, so anything which might increase the odds would be out.

ZOMG!!! Wouldn't the circuit boards melt,puki?

People still overclock?

I have OC'd almost every personal PC I have own except this laptop, but I have only once OC'd my work PC - they are usually so fast anyway that there's no need... and stability IS important; few % more power and a possibility of losing hours worth of worth because of BSOD? Not really something I'd want at work.

Here is the info on Core 2 4300 http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2903

I am not talking crazy over clocking. I was just reading that the 4300 1.8GHz was overclocked to more than 3GHz. At above 350FSB, it became unstable. So they lowered it below and ran bunch of games and found it to be stable I presume.

I'd love to have a $160 chip perform close to an $800 chip. I do know you get what you pay for though. Just wanted to get info on it. I never overclocked anything before so needed input.

I wonder if there is some test I can have done for 24 hours to test stability of a system. I've never had BSOD on my XP system, ever. :) Woo hoo.

Thank you all for your input.

I don't OC stuff. There is actually no reason to do so (especially as I am on notebook and it is quite critical OCing anything within a NB). My Core Duo has enough power, my GPU can't be overclocked as it ran at its stability max when deliveried ... and OCing RAM is little pointless. It can burn but does not become really faster.

What Gabe said.

I have never felt the need to overclock any of the computers I have owned..

It's OK as long as no problem happens, sometimes I try OC for testing purpose.

I have been in PC's a long time. I overclocked back in the days when I had to replace a crystal on the MB :) I usually upgrade at least once a year and just switched from AMD to a Core 2 Duo (my first Intel in many years.) I got a great CPU cooler and a nice case so that I can overclock if I need to, but I haven't yet. I have a GeForce 8800GTS and a 2.4 C2D so I haven't felt the need. But I am sure if I need to, I can take it up to 3gHz. These days I am into rock solid stability (not that there aren't rock solid OC's.)

People who feel it's nessecary to overclock a processor with multiple several GHz cores are missing the plot completely. I can understan why you would overclock you A4000/040 from 25Mhz to 40Mhz or 50Mhz. But overclocking a 2.4 GHz dual core CPU to 2.6GHz seems somewhat redundant.

Well, it appears that intel came out with a chip that you can overclock from 1.8GHz to around 3GHz and during benchmark and game play tests, rates around 2.6GHz chip that costs 6x. With Core2, I think overclocking is again very interesting.

But it seems general concensus is don't if you develop. Its a setting anyways, I can always go from one to the other.

BTW, these overclocks were based on stock fans, so no fansy cooling systems were required.

If it's not a minimum 15% MHz difference it's hardly going to be noticable.

Most effective way of 'overclocking' your processor is to stop running bloatware Windows on it.