So how many people run stock, or only light OEM supported overclocking?

>>60238301
I put my 5820k at 3.8ghz I stead of the standard 3.1 or 3.2 that it has.

Why do you ask?

>>60238301
I've got an i5 4690k still at stock clocks. When I bought it it went in an NZXT H440 and I was able to keep it stable at 4.2GHz but I moved my build to a mITX case and I just left it at stock. I haven't noticed a performance hit.

My 1700X is running at stock because it's not bottlenecking anything yet.
Just got the proper AM4 mounting hardware for my H100i, so I'll throw a few volts at it to see what it can do, but I'll probably run it at stock for a while.

>>60238301
I run my 2500k at stock speed, I don't need anything faster and I'm not a fag

>>60238301
Don't worry OP, I don't overclock either because I got a modern, relevant CPU.
Overclocking is fucking dumb, just get a proper CPU instead of some outdated Pentium tier shit.

>>60238301
I bought a giant heatsink and underclocked my cpu so it runs comfy at 50°C with passive cooling.

>>60238301
I prefer to pay more money and get a better CPU/speed than to pay less with a subpar CPU and do that trial-and-error shit that is overclocking.

So yes, I run stock.

>>60238301
i run stock because my cpu is not K variant its 'i5 4590' only

i recently clocked up to stock on a celeron, stock is nice but eats battery

>>60238301
I underclock because my computer would freeze under heavy loads

i have a k-processor "just in case"
never bothered with it, because the heat/noise/energy cost is not worth some 1-fps increase or completing a task a millisecond faster
I trust the manufacturers know their shit and if they can safely boost the MHz numbers on their product they sure as hell will