vcore value low

Hi Guys

I'm trying to oc my fx8350 on a gigabyte gaming sli mobo. BIOS version is F1.
The vcore will not go higher than +0.775v and I believe i need it up to at least double that value, i.e., 1.3v / 1.4v.
My PSU is a Seasonic Gold 550w.
GPU is RX580 8gb.

Your thoughts as to why the vcore won't go higher would be appreciated.
Thank you.
Reply to garry.scanlan
34 answers Last reply
More about vcore low
  1. Did you turn off all power saving modes ?
    When you say +0.775v, you certainly mean an offset not actual voltage ? Yes, 1.4v would be just a start for OCing.
    Reply to CountMike
  2. CountMike said:
    Did you turn off all power saving modes ?
    When you say +0.775v, you certainly mean an offset not actual voltage ? Yes, 1.4v would be just a start for OCing.

    Thank you replying CountMike.

    I did turn off 'cool and quiet' but that's all. What others are there? I'd appreciate being enlightened. (I'll also google it).

    fwiw: The MIT current status page shows vcore at 1.476v

    When I go into the 'Advanced Frequency Settings' page the first line is 'CPU Vcore' which is set to 'Auto'.
    This is what i'm assuming I have to change.

    If I change it it goes to 'Normal' then ' -0.800v ' then I can adjust upwards incrementally up to +0.775v and that's it.

    Cheers
    Reply to garry.scanlan
  3. garry.scanlan said:
    CountMike said:
    Did you turn off all power saving modes ?
    When you say +0.775v, you certainly mean an offset not actual voltage ? Yes, 1.4v would be just a start for OCing.

    Thank you replying CountMike.

    I did turn off 'cool and quiet' but that's all. What others are there? I'd appreciate being enlightened. (I'll also google it).

    fwiw: The MIT current status page shows vcore at 1.476v

    When I go into the 'Advanced Frequency Settings' page the first line is 'CPU Vcore' which is set to 'Auto'.
    This is what i'm assuming I have to change.

    If I change it it goes to 'Normal' then ' -0.800v ' then I can adjust upwards incrementally up to +0.775v and that's it.

    Cheers


    that seems like the offset voltage meaning that its your cpus normal voltage + what ever is in that box (-0.800 that means it can drop the voltage as low as that if it needs to like when idling it does not need that much voltage so it dropps it so the fan does not work exta hard and not as much heat and power is taken)

    if you were to put +1.4v your cpu would simply not work because that would make it run at over 2v which is way to high

    check voltages in cpuz rather than bios untill it shows your desired voltage
    Reply to vlad.fil37
  4. There should also be C6 power saving option to disable as well as any turbo options. As soon as you start overclocking you have also set voltages manually. So, which way are you OCing, by multiplier or FSB ?
    PS. Don't use offset and manual voltage settings for now.
    Reply to CountMike
  5. CountMike - Got it. I can see these settings. Cool & quiet / Core C6 / HPC / APM.

    In the past on my previous mobo (UD3) I have simply oc'd by changing the multiplier to give me 4.2 / 4.4 / 4.6 and then adjusting vcore as required.
    I have had this chip oc'd to 4.6 on my previous gigabyte board.

    What is confusing me is that whilst I can change multiplier values I cannot see anywhere to adjust vcore voltage.

    Vlad: Thanks. Understood.


    As I mentioned previously the vcore value on the MIT page shows the vcore voltage at 1.476v - that I would expect if I had oc'd.

    Do I simply have to adjust the multiplier as high as it will go before crashing?

    Sorry if this is tedious I'm a bit of newb at oc despite reading a lot about it on the net.
    Reply to garry.scanlan
  6. Which cooler do you have for CPU ? With a good one you can go up to 1.5v or more and achieve pretty good OC. I was running FX 6350 at 1.55v and 4.8 GHz for 2 - 3 years without problem but with giant cooler Mugen 3 and 2 120mm fans without temps hitting 60c ever.
    Btw. are you using AMD Overdrive for monitoring ?
    Reply to CountMike
  7. CountMike said:
    Did you turn off all power saving modes ?
    When you say +0.775v, you certainly mean an offset not actual voltage ? Yes, 1.4v would be just a start for OCing.


    CountMike said:
    Which cooler do you have for CPU ? With a good one you can go up to 1.5v or more and achieve pretty good OC. I was running FX 6350 at 1.55v and 4.8 GHz for 2 - 3 years without problem but with giant cooler Mugen 3 and 2 120mm fans without temps hitting 60c ever.
    Btw. are you using AMD Overdrive for monitoring ?
    Reply to garry.scanlan
  8. I'm using a Cryorig H7. My previous oc on this chip at 4.6ghz was the good old EVO 212.

    Since posting I've tinkered a bit with FBS and multiplier and without changing any voltages or turning off any power saving/control modes i'm hitting 4.3ghz and HW monitor shows I'm hitting 4.4ghz max.

    But I'm still wondering where in the BIOS I can change the vcore voltage if what I was using is the offset voltage.
    Does this board automatically change vcore for me as I change the FSB and multiplier settings?
    Reply to garry.scanlan
  9. CountMike said:
    Which cooler do you have for CPU ? With a good one you can go up to 1.5v or more and achieve pretty good OC. I was running FX 6350 at 1.55v and 4.8 GHz for 2 - 3 years without problem but with giant cooler Mugen 3 and 2 120mm fans without temps hitting 60c ever.
    Btw. are you using AMD Overdrive for monitoring ?
    Reply to garry.scanlan
  10. Sorry, CountMike, I never told you that I am not using AMD overdrive for monitoring.


    Because I see so often that it is better to oc in BIOS, I have used it only out of curiosity to see what it would do and it reached 4.4GHz.
    I didn't pursue it as I know I can do better.
    Reply to garry.scanlan
  11. You don't have to use AOD for overclocking, just for monitoring because it's most accurate one on that platform. Just don't touch OC sliders and no OC is affected.
    Reply to CountMike
  12. CountMike said:
    You don't have to use AOD for overclocking, just for monitoring because it's most accurate one on that platform. Just don't touch OC sliders and no OC is affected.


    CountMike / Vlad

    So if I understand what you're saying, I need to adjust the 'cpu vcore' value, which we now know is the offset voltage, and then I use either AOD or CPUZ to check the new value of the cpu vcore.
    I suppose I then change the multiplier value incrementally upwards until failure and then increase vcore again - temps permitting...and repeat?

    How do I find the start value of vcore? Is it the vcore value of 1.476v that the MIT page shows?
    (If I look at the 'core voltage' reading in CPUZ, for example, it fluctuates between ~0.984v to ~1.44v)

    So if I change the 'cpu vcore' (offset voltage) by 0.1v I should expect to see a vcore value of 1.576 in AOD or CPUZ (assuming the start value of cpu vcore is 1.476v as shown on the MIT page)?
    Reply to garry.scanlan
  13. Fluctuating voltages indicate that something is left on Auto. I prefer to set everything on manual, even if that means keeping default values. Start small and test at every step until limits are reached and than back off a tad for stability.
    very component is subject to "Silicone lottery" so every system may end up with different result.
    Reply to CountMike
  14. CountMike said:
    Fluctuating voltages indicate that something is left on Auto. I prefer to set everything on manual, even if that means keeping default values. Start small and test at every step until limits are reached and than back off a tad for stability.
    very component is subject to "Silicone lottery" so every system may end up with different result.
    Reply to garry.scanlan
  15. CountMike: When you say you set everything to manual are you referring to all the power control modes you referred to previously?

    And I use the cpu vcore one increment at a time and the multiplier one increment at a time and use cpu z or AOD to check the actual vcore voltage?
    Reply to garry.scanlan
  16. CountMike said:
    Fluctuating voltages indicate that something is left on Auto. I prefer to set everything on manual, even if that means keeping default values. Start small and test at every step until limits are reached and than back off a tad for stability.
    very component is subject to "Silicone lottery" so every system may end up with different result.
    Reply to garry.scanlan
  17. Vlad/CountMike

    I finally got a response from Gigabyte to the effect that this board affords 'modest' oc'ing. So my expectations were too high.
    But at least I learned a thing or two from you guys.
    Thanks very much for your time and knowledge..
    Reply to garry.scanlan
  18. If this is your MB: https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/GA-990X-Gaming-SLI-rev-10#ov they are too modest about modest OC, they are covering their asses as that's one of better MBs with good VRM. 4.5GHz should be a nobrainer with it.
    When I said everything on manual I meant mainly voltages and specially PCIe frequency to 100MHz because changing FSB/BCLK changes that too and induces instability.
    My last FX system had GA-990XA-UD3 (rev. 1.1) and was running my FX 6350 @4.8 GHz for 24/7.
    Reply to CountMike
  19. CountMike said:
    If this is your MB: https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/GA-990X-Gaming-SLI-rev-10#ov they are too modest about modest OC, they are covering their asses as that's one of better MBs with good VRM. 4.5GHz should be a nobrainer with it.
    When I said everything on manual I meant mainly voltages and specially PCIe frequency to 100MHz because changing FSB/BCLK changes that too and induces instability.
    My last FX system had GA-990XA-UD3 (rev. 1.1) and was running my FX 6350 @4.8 GHz for 24/7.
    Reply to garry.scanlan
  20. I agree. I seem to recall that the oc capability of this board was one of the reasons I bought it!!

    The UD3 was my previous board too before a lightning storm fried it along with my psu and r9 280x. I was running this fx8350 chip at 4.6GHz although I did get it up to 4.8.

    Just to be clear: I can up the current vcore voltage value (BIOS shows it as 1.476v) using the 'cpu vcore' in small +ve increments but I need to verify the actual vcore value each incremental change makes in either AOD or CPU-Z because BIOS won't show it to me. I don't intend going higher than 1.5v.

    I'm looking to upgrade in the Black Friday sales so if it all goes tits up it won't be a disaster!!! LOL.
    I love flight simming so unsure as to whether to go the Ryzen route or Intel...this chip plays most games pretty good (Far Cry Primal at the mo on 45fps) but struggles a bit in the flight sim.

    Cheers
    Reply to garry.scanlan
  21. Check my system in the sig, despite not very good GPU flight sims do very good on it. Graphics are not too involved with simulation programs , CPU and RAM handle most tasks having more calculations to do.
    Reply to CountMike
  22. CountMike said:
    Check my system in the sig, despite not very good GPU flight sims do very good on it. Graphics are not too involved with simulation programs , CPU and RAM handle most tasks having more calculations to do.
    Reply to garry.scanlan
  23. Yes indeed. And therein lies my dilemma. Do I go the Intel route for better single thread performance or the AMD route.
    I've always bought AMD if only for competition's sake and the fact my software developer buddies recommend AMD.

    We cannot let Intel and nVidia to keep ripping us off. Just look at the price reductions now that AMD is raising their game.
    Can only be good for us consumers.

    I can tell you, one day I'm all for Intel and the next it's AMD. I just hope the Black Friday sales help to clarify things.....maybe I'll simply go for what's easiest on my wallet.
    Reply to garry.scanlan
  24. CountMike said:
    Check my system in the sig, despite not very good GPU flight sims do very good on it. Graphics are not too involved with simulation programs , CPU and RAM handle most tasks having more calculations to do.
    Reply to garry.scanlan
  25. In my experience difference between my 1600x at 4025MHz and lets say i7 7700k with single core performance is maybe 1% less but multi-core performance of 1600x is 25% higher.
    Reply to CountMike
  26. I just checked your rig spec. This is close to what I've been considering, I was looking at a b350 board and r5 1600.
    I'm running P3d v4 with most of the bells and whistles and get up to ~40fps in the mountains (alsaka/Norway) but over big cities FPS drops dramatically to around 12/15
    May I ask what sim are you using and what's your typical fps?
    Reply to garry.scanlan
  27. MS Flight sim, Pro Flight Sim and MS Combat Flight Simulator 3. I have single engine license too. Never really bothered to check FPS as it's all running super smooth.
    I prefer MS Flight sim to keep my hand in instrument flying as I haven't had chance to actually fly for maybe 15 years. Don't know about it now but at some time Canada (maybe other countries too) was certifying one hour of real flying (with instructor) to proof of 10 hours on MS Flight Sim. Flight school on Toronto island airport was using it for classroom instructions. In '60s, I soloed on gliders so transition to power flight was relatively easy.
    Reply to CountMike
  28. CountMike said:
    In my experience difference between my 1600x at 4025MHz and lets say i7 7700k with single core performance is maybe 1% less but multi-core performance of 1600x is 25% higher.
    Reply to garry.scanlan
  29. That's good to know, I may very well get the 1600X then. I assume I need to consider a better board to get the best out of this cpu? I was considering the 1600 purely because my psu is 550w (granted it's a Seasonic Gold) and the TDP is lower than the 1600x. But I think I'll get away with it.
    The thing I have to keep reminding myself is when you see all the benchmark figures for the various chips and cards up in the 80s and above I only need to get something close to 60fps as that is the refresh rate on my monitor. Anything above 40 fps seems ok to me. But it needs to be 40fps over cities!

    I have flown only once - an hour's flight courtesy of an ex girlfriend for my birthday many years ago now. I thought I was pretty damn good but when we landed I turned round to thank her only to see her green face before she vomited. LOL.
    Reply to garry.scanlan
  30. TDP is not same as actual electrical power usage. TDP (Thermal Power Design) is measure of heat processor produces. There's very little power raise when you OC. In most cases, it's GPU that consumes most power. As for CPU, it's only few watts more from default to full OC, almost insignificant comparing to whole system.
    That PSU should do fine.
    Reply to CountMike
  31. CountMike said:
    TDP is not same as actual electrical power usage. TDP (Thermal Power Design) is measure of heat processor produces. There's very little power raise when you OC. In most cases, it's GPU that consumes most power. As for CPU, it's only few watts more from default to full OC, almost insignificant comparing to whole system.
    That PSU should do fine.
    Reply to garry.scanlan
  32. Sorry - I thought TDP was Total Draw Power, my mistake. The 1600 is 65W and the 1600x is 95W? Thanks again for the info.
    Reply to garry.scanlan
  33. Yes non-x is 65 and x is 95W TDP but if run at same frequencies both would be same. "X" is just higher binned non-x processor, running at higher frequency. Actually, all Ryzen processors start as practically same die with highest binned R7 1800x and rest have some cores slowed down or even disconnected, all the way down to R3 1200.
    Reply to CountMike
  34. CountMike said:
    Yes non-x is 65 and x is 95W TDP but if run at same frequencies both would be same. "X" is just higher binned non-x processor, running at higher frequency. Actually, all Ryzen processors start as practically same die with highest binned R7 1800x and rest have some cores slowed down or even disconnected, all the way down to R3 1200.
    Reply to garry.scanlan
Ask a new question Answer

Read More

Overclocking Gigabyte