Sticky

Intel Overclocking Club - page 2

706 answers Last reply
  1. Meyithi said:
    This is as far as I'll take my 3960X on air, http://www.meyithi.com/graphics/oc.png, 10pm NW England so I'd want a good 10c leeway just in-case we ever get a decent summer in the UK :)

    Specs in sig

    I'm jelly :P
    Reply to amuffin
  2. DarkOutlaw said:
    Nah you can keep it here. I mean...It kinda is the purpose of this thread.

    Ram timings can be an issue. you also want to make sure you disable:

    All "C" states
    Spread Spectrum
    Speed Step


    gah! so many differences in opinion. before i set up this rig last month, i read this long-winded rant on another forum (which i can't find) about Spread Spectrum being preferable for Sandy Bridge CPUs. could disabling it result in lower temps/greater stability/both?
    all C states are off, i had Speedstep off at first for testing but it didn't seem to affect anything when i enabled it. don't you have speedstep enabled, as per the core speed in your screenshot? i'd agree it's best left off for testing at least.

    i'll go back down a few volts on the vcore, try disabling Spread Spectrum first, then if that doesn't work reset the RAM timings & i'll let you know how it goes. cheers!
    Reply to mrstab
  3. mrstab said:
    gah! so many differences in opinion. before i set up this rig last month, i read this long-winded rant on another forum (which i can't find) about Spread Spectrum being preferable for Sandy Bridge CPUs. could disabling it result in lower temps/greater stability/both?
    all C states are off, i had Speedstep off at first for testing but it didn't seem to affect anything when i enabled it. don't you have speedstep enabled, as per the core speed in your screenshot? i'd agree it's best left off for testing at least.

    i'll go back down a few volts on the vcore, try disabling Spread Spectrum first, then if that doesn't work reset the RAM timings & i'll let you know how it goes. cheers!


    Spread Spectrum lowers EMP fields. Its kinda like the tin hat vs aliens or satellites theory imo. Its mostly used in work environments where you have hundreds of computers. Speedstep, I do not know the exact numbers, but it lets your CPU go from 1.6 to 2.5 to 3.3 to max. with it disabled it goes from 1.6 (idle) to max (4.6 for me). This way there is no throttleing, because your CPU will constantly try and use a lower multiplier. Both will affect stablility, I dont think temps will really change though.
    Reply to DarkOutlaw
  4. cool, i think i get you with the disadvantage of speedstep. still seems like a pretty divisive subject, but i'll turn it off and only test it with it on again if i manage stability.
    i did read recently that Spread spectrum was better suited to environments with loads of systems, which made me question the other source i mentioned, but by that point i had been using it for a while and hadn't noticed this temp/voltage issue.

    what's the deal with the short/long power duration setting? can't remember the exact name, but i wasn't sure so after some experimentation i found stability (4.5ghz) at ~200w. the TDP of my cooler is 150w, although i added another fan which reduced temps about 10 degrees.

    i'll actually reboot after this post and change stuff instead of procrastinating.
    Reply to mrstab
  5. mrstab said:
    cool, i think i get you with the disadvantage of speedstep. still seems like a pretty divisive subject


    And I'm one of those that swear by SpeedStep and think that you should never really disable it (unless it's causing instability). It hasn't ever caused a problem for me (absolutely NO instability issues caused by SpeedStep). Maybe I'm lucky or just maybe, it's not THAT big of a deal.

    It USED to be a problem with previous generations, but from Sandy forward, I don't think it really is.
    Reply to DJDeCiBeL
  6. DJDeCiBeL said:
    And I'm one of those that swear by SpeedStep and think that you should never really disable it


    i'm inclined to agree more with this view, less power consumption when you don't need it and it seems to have been fine with me thus far.

    ok, so i disabled speedstep and sp. spectrum to no avail, but then i did a coupla other things: i disabled this setting called "Package C States", must've overlooked it as i went straight to disable the more obvious C3 & C5 a while back. then, on a hunch because my bus speed is 102MHz just to get a better-looking rating in Windows lol, i thought hmm, maybe i should turn up my RAM voltage a little bit. so i turned it up to 1.365v (from rated 1.35), booted and passed 10 runs of IBT. i'll give it another go though as i was probably just lucky and i have a pessimistic outlook lol.

    btw, Coretemp is reporting my VID as going up to 1.42v even though voltage is at fixed and CPU-Z reads it as 1.352. wtf?

    edit: passed again, but just noticed max temp on one core hit 90 on the first attempt (lower on the 2nd). i wonder if it's worth trying to lower the vcore if it was the RAM voltage that fixed it
    Reply to mrstab
  7. If you have an Asrock board try setting LLC to 3, If you have another board set the LLC to whatever 50% is.

    SpeedStep is a great power saving feature...but on that note most all of us throw power saving out the window just by reading this stuff. It's more personal preference, me personally when I am using my computer want that power there without it needing to be called/calculated.
    Reply to DarkOutlaw
  8. And change your FBS back to 100, that will cause issues even if you shoot it up by 1. Intel is made to work @ 100 or some odd some such. Only AMD chips should need the bus changed.
    Reply to DarkOutlaw
  9. DarkOutlaw said:
    And change your FBS back to 100.


    i am well and truly out of ideas so i'll try that.

    unfortunately i can't find an option for LLC in the UEFI (P67 Pro3), hence the droop.

    i've been spending the past coupla hours trying various things but no luck.

    edit: changed the bus to 100mhz but still BSOD in IBT at 1.35v. maybe ive just hit the limit of my chip
    Reply to mrstab
  10. What are your voltage levels for 4.4 and 4.5?
    Reply to DarkOutlaw
  11. i put it back to 4.5 earlier actually, passes IBT repeatedly at 1.330v, could probably put it down a bit more though. that's the weird thing.
    Reply to mrstab
  12. @amuffin

    The darker blue background on your stable OC spreadsheet would be easier to read with white lettering.
    Reply to 4Ryan6
  13. mrstab said:
    i put it back to 4.5 earlier actually, passes IBT repeatedly at 1.330v, could probably put it down a bit more though. that's the weird thing.


    Nah weird was it takes me 1.38v @ 4.5 but 1.328v @ 4.6 :kaola:
    Reply to DarkOutlaw
  14. Name: DeathEngine
    CPU: i5 2500k
    Motherboard: Asrock Z77
    CPU Voltage: 1.36
    CPU Bus Speed/Multiplier: 52
    Clock Speed: 5200
    RAM: 8 GB Corsair xms3 9-9-9-24
    Cooling: Noctua D-14
    OS: Win7 Home Premium

    Not stable but low voltage
    Reply to deathengine
  15. DarkOutlaw said:
    Nah weird was it takes me 1.38v @ 4.5 but 1.328v @ 4.6 :kaola:


    lol that is pretty weird, maybe you have an antimatter CPU.
    thanks for the help, looks like i'll be stuck back at 4.5 unless i get some better cooling.
    Reply to mrstab
  16. 4.5 is perfect for everyday use. Even 4ryan6 who is running 5.2ghz? pushes his down to 4.5 for 24/7 use. Or am I wrong on that?
    Reply to DarkOutlaw
  17. 2nd Entry:

    Name: 4Ryan6
    CPU: i7 2700K @ 5300mhz
    Motherboard: ASRock P67 Extreme 4
    CPU Voltage: Bios set @ 1.650v
    CPU Bus Speed/Multiplier: 100/53
    RAM: 8g > 2 x 4g G-Skill 1333 @ 9,9,9,24
    Cooling: Water Cooling http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/275185-29-exploring-ambient-water-cooling
    OS: Win7 Professional 64 bit

    Stability as requested:

    Reply to 4Ryan6
  18. ^ They left my door unlocked and I got out of my room! :lol:
    Reply to 4Ryan6
  19. 20 18 20 20

    5.3ghz

    1.65V.


    WTF!
    Reply to amuffin
  20. Isn't it wonderful! :)
    Reply to 4Ryan6
  21. amuffin said:
    20 18 20 20

    5.3ghz

    1.65V.


    WTF!


    That was the idle temp at the screenshot!

    Load during Intel Burn was: 64~73~72~70

    Water Temperature during the test was 9c, that's 14c below my ambient room temperature.

    Water pump was on level 5, maximum flow rate.
    Reply to 4Ryan6
  22. Quote:
    http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2284794
    uhmm..not stable :lol:
    Cooling was bong evap+ice


    Holy crap, you guys are all crazy, but thats why I love you.

    Bus speed is over 105 mhz? How did that go?
    Reply to Max1s
  23. Quote:
    http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2284794
    uhmm..not stable :lol:
    Cooling was bong evap+ice


    You've got yourself a really good 2500K! :)
    Reply to 4Ryan6
  24. 4Ryan6 said:
    You've got yourself a really good 2500K! :)


    Well at almost 1.7v you'd assume he'd get pretty high. :-P I still can't get over these voltages I'm seeing!
    Reply to Max1s
  25. Max1s said:
    Well at almost 1.7v you'd assume he'd get pretty high. :-P I still can't get over these voltages I'm seeing!


    He used a Bong Cooler and added Ice to control his water temperature, my cooling is linked above.

    It takes extreme below ambient cooling to even think of taking voltage levels up there like that, especially shooting to stabilize at those type of clocks.

    Though I stabilized at 5300mhz, I had no intentions of leaving it set like that, no one should even attempt something like those clocks without the cooling necessary to do so.

    The sanity of it even with the cooling is debatable, Intels top end voltage test range was 1.520V, exceeding that is just flat risky and something done at your own expense.
    Reply to 4Ryan6
  26. Quote:
    I'm cool with (4.2 - 4.3GHz) on my gaming unit and my daily unit runs @ (4.0GHz)...


    DarkOutlaw said:
    4.5 is perfect for everyday use. Even 4ryan6 who is running 5.2ghz? pushes his down to 4.5 for 24/7 use. Or am I wrong on that?


    this is why i think hedonism is such a good analogy, you always want a higher clock!! lol. better risking destroying a chip than your septum!
    that's a pretty fine overclock right there, nice one.
    Reply to mrstab
  27. DarkOutlaw said:
    4.5 is perfect for everyday use. Even 4ryan6 who is running 5.2ghz? pushes his down to 4.5 for 24/7 use. Or am I wrong on that?


    Affirmative! You are not wrong. :)
    Reply to 4Ryan6
  28. Name: Shockattackr
    CPU: i5 3570k
    Motherboard: Asus P8Z77 - V
    CPU Voltage: 1.275v
    CPU Bus Speed/Multiplier: 100*44
    Clock Speed: 4.4GHZ
    RAM: 16GB Corsair Vengeance
    Cooling: Antec KUHLER H2O 920
    OS: Windows 7 Ultimate x64 bit

    http://i.imgur.com/c5vls.png
    Reply to Shockattackr
  29. Battlemachine lol.
    Reply to amuffin
  30. Don't cheat^^
    Reply to amuffin
  31. 2 cores 2 threads ;P
    Reply to amuffin
  32. Name: CCHartsell
    CPU: i5-3570k
    Motherboard: Gigabyte Z77X-UD3H
    CPU Voltage: 1.32V
    CPU Bus Speed/Multiplier: 100*45
    Clock Speed: 4.5GHz
    RAM: G.Skill Ripjaws X 1600MHz DDR3 9-9-9-24-2T
    Cooling: CM Hyper 212 Plus
    OS: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
    CPU-Z Validation: http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2454753


    By cchartsell at 2012-07-28

    Do you need to see it survive intel burn test or will what I have above be okay? If it means anything I did run burn test on standard and it passed. Just didn't screen shot it.
    Reply to cchartsell
  33. Reply to amuffin
  34. Quote:
    http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2453441
    With a lot of trying.

    ::sigh:: I want a good 2500K


    amuffin said:
    Don't cheat^^


    Quote:
    Cheat? cheat how? :pt1cable:


    amuffin said:
    2 cores 2 threads ;P


    Good catch! He'll never pull off a clock like that with all 4 cores running, unless he is using LN2.
    Reply to 4Ryan6
  35. Quote:
    ^This guy is telling it like it is..I killed that chip..and I'd do it again :P
    not necessarily from that run..forgot to plug in my pump and started comp with a 4.6 OC :??:


    For the record, mine is running just fine, No Problems! Ryan
    Reply to 4Ryan6
  36. Additionally for the record, be careful in your attempts to get as high a clock as you can especially if you really do not have the cooling to do so, as you can loose your investment.

    The raw urge to compete can get you into trouble in an overclocking club so be careful and cautious, don't guess at what you're doing know what you're doing!

    I would like to share regarding my i7 2700K entry clocked to 5300mhz was done running all 4 cores however hyper-threading would not stabilize past a 49x multiplier no matter what I did.

    Maybe sharing that bit of info will help some of you running the CPUs capable of running hyper-threading, all cpus are different but you may need to disable hyper-threading to go past the 50x multiplier.

    If you venture up to and beyond a Vcore of 1.520v, don't stay there any longer than you have to, and then back it down to a safer 24/7 operating range below 1.40v, below 1.35 would be even better for longevity.

    As with any overclock, be careful and know when to quit. Ryan
    Reply to 4Ryan6
  37. Quote:
    ..not worth replying to.. smh You do realize that most max overclocks are done on 1-2 cores? no?Well..They are.

    6 Cores 12 Threads :)

    Reply to amuffin
  38. list has been updated :) I'm pretty sure I got everyone. If I skipped over you let me know so I can add you in.
    Reply to cchartsell
  39. Quote:
    ..not worth replying to.. smh You do realize that most max overclocks are done on 1-2 cores? no?Well..They are.


    IMO if no rules to the club specified otherwise a 1 or 2 core clock should be allowed.

    We your comrade overclockers will be looking more closely simply because it's much easier to drop cores and attain an overclock on 1 or 2 cores than the full amount of cores the CPU actually has.

    It's not actually cheating but can be considered false representing a full core clock, and would be best displayed by stating it's not a full core clock to start with.

    My 2 cents! Ry
    Reply to 4Ryan6
  40. 4Ryan6 said:
    IMO if no rules to the club specified otherwise a 1 or 2 core clock should be allowed.

    We your comrade overclockers will be looking more closely simply because it's much easier to drop cores and attain an overclock on 1 or 2 cores than the full amount of cores the CPU actually has.

    It's not actually cheating but can be considered false representing a full core clock, and would be best displayed by stating it's not a full core clock to start with.

    My 2 cents! Ry


    I agree, amuffin can you update the requirements? All cores / hyper threading should be enabled.
    Reply to DarkOutlaw
  41. DarkOutlaw said:
    I agree, amuffin can you update the requirements? All cores / hyper threading should be enabled.



    Hyper threading is an option, not a standard core requirement and that does not have to be a requirement that hyper threading be enabled.
    Reply to 4Ryan6
  42. Quote:
    is it true that the i7's clock higher with hyper-threading off or it's a myth and doesn't matter.?


    Affirmative!
    Reply to 4Ryan6
  43. There's no need to do any rule changing at this point of already accepted members, I'm having a US government flashback, change the rules to fit the policy that was not thoroughly thought out in the first place.
    Reply to 4Ryan6
  44. Updated with Facebook Page instead of group. Just click Like!

    https://www.facebook.com/TomsHardwareIntelOverclockingClub
    Reply to amuffin
  45. Quote:
    so 'recon-uk' is no longer with us permanently it seems.
    he was on his last chance and I guess he blew it.

    I think he's so bitter that he even 'unfriend' me on Steam..... :lol:
    what a girl.

    no more of his 480's plated in gold that claim to outperform QUAD SLi GTX 690's...
    :p


    That's a shame, I liked him.

    Josey Wales, "Whenever I start to liking someone, they ain't around long!"

    Lone Watie, "I noticed when you start to disliking someone, they ain't around long either!"

    Vaya Con Dios! recon-uk

    Don't get me wrong Mike, I wish you would have changed your attitude, there are many past THGF users that never got the chances to readjust their attitudes that you did, you brought the hammer down upon yourself.

    IMO you got too many slap on the wrists, in my earlier moderating days you wouldn't have gotten 1/4th the get out of jail free cards you were given.

    Hopefully you've learned something from this, and I do hope for the best for you, and your family!

    Ry
    Reply to 4Ryan6
  46. ^ I added something else to it, check that out too!
    Reply to 4Ryan6
  47. Here is a nice OC guide I used for my i7-960 which also includes i3, i5 and other i7 chips.

    http://www.overclockers.com/updated-intel-overclocking-guides/

    My original OC was: http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y270/rheyan0809/MYOC.jpg (Note: real temp is bugged in that SS as it reflects the incorrect multiplier, CPUZ is correct)

    Then I changed to the setup below because I was certain the CPU could handle more! Current OC below.

    Name: Reilentless
    CPU: i7-960
    Mobo: ASUS PT6D Deluxe
    RAM: 3 x 4GB Kingston 1600MHz @ 9-9-9-24
    VCore: 1.32v
    BUS/Multiplier: 201 x 21
    Clock speed: 4.21 GHz
    Cooling: Prolimatech - Megahalem REV.B w/ 1x 120mm Scythe Silent Fans @ 1500rpm
    OS: Windows 7 Ultimate SP1
    CPU-Z Validation: http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2465393

    3DMARK11 Result for those interested: http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y270/rheyan0809/3Dmark11.jpg
    Reply to reilentless
  48. Quote:
    so is that 4 x HD 6870 in quad CF-X or is it 2 x (6870x2) for quad CF-X.?


    Its 2x (6870x2) for Quad CF-X

    Pic below.



    Case: Antec902 1st Gen
    PSU: Antec 850w Signature 80 Plus Bronze

    Soon to upgrade to Corsair 800D and try out watercooling. I'm having a little trouble looking for waterblocks for the 6870x2 though... as you'd probably know 2 x 6870x2 in an 800D would be a terrible idea. If I have no luck on GPU water blocks I may go the HAX-F.
    Reply to reilentless
  49. Quote:
    nice...
    not liking the HAF-X idea, better options are out there.
    (too many people have the HAF-X..)


    Hence my hesitation... except the HAF-X has a nice setup for GPU cooling on the side panel that really benefits my GPU setup. The 800D however is the case I really want, except it has no side cooling... if anything I'll mod the perspex to fit a 140mm fan for the GPUs or sell the 6870x2s and go back to Nvidia.

    TBH setting up the drivers for these cards were a nightmare when I first got them and atm the latest Catalyst drivers reduce performance :pfff: Anyway I'm sure a thread for that exists elsewhere :)

    Other case suggestions?
    Reply to reilentless
  50. You could always use four uni's.
    Reply to amuffin
Ask a new question Answer

Read More

Overclocking CPUs Intel b940