Comparing my overclock to yours (3570k)

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
ericjohn004

ericjohn004

Honorable
Oct 26, 2012
651
0
11,010
I have a 3570k and I'm currently at 4.5Ghz. I just moved down from 4.6Ghz because my games would crash. And with 1.385v too. At 4.5Ghz I'm FULLY stable and have been for a while. Nothing will crash this thing at 4.5Ghz with only 1.295v. But if I wanna go higher than 4.5Ghz, it'll take me probably 1.40v just to get to 4.6Ghz. And when I say it takes me 1.400v, this is what it takes to be FULLY stable. Meaning 500 passes of IBT, playing every game I own for hours without crashing. This isn't the typical "Hey I'm at 4.8Ghz at 1.30v and I can run 10 passes of IBT and play my little games". I'm talking fully stable hear.

So what are some of you guys FULLY stable overclocks? I'm really curious to know because one of my friends has built 100's of these 3570k computers and he says they normally max out at 4.5Ghz. And to get to 4.6Ghz it takes drastic changes in voltage. And this so happened to be 100% true for my chip. And he told me this before I even built my PC. So is this true? Or are 3570k's really just that different from eachother?

Keep in mind, I've been at 4.8, 4.7, 4.6, and 4.5. I thought I was fully stable a bunch of different times. But as I've used this PC I've realized that it really takes a whole lot more voltage than what I've claimed in the past. At one point I was claiming 4.8Ghz at 1.385v. That turned out to not be true though.

What are you guys thoughts?
 
Solution
inzone
The voltage is the determining factor and because your adding that voltage to the cpu there will be heat generated and while you may have a good cooling solution the heat will still be generated. People can get the wrong idea about overclocking and when you come down to it you really don't need to get to the very last ghz that you possibly can, it's not going to make that much difference. If the top ghz that you could get to was 4.6 and you stopped at 4.5 and were debating if you should go for it, what difference do you think that .1ghz will make in the performance of your computer.

Another thing to keep in mind is that there are those that overclock to be able to brag about thier cpu running 5.3ghz stable and voltage at 1.**v and the...
Sort by date Sort by votes
ihog

ihog

Distinguished
May 22, 2012
5,166
2
19,960
Yeah, your chip ain't too nice with voltages; same here with my 3570K. Mine hits 4.5 @ 1.29V and right now I'm at 4.8 @ 1.46V. I'd tell you my stable voltages for 4.6 and 4.7, but I got real pissed off and just put my chip to 4.8 and 1.55V and went down from there.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
inzone

inzone

Champion
Mar 12, 2011
14,971
1
51,960
The whole thing with overclocking the Ivy bridge cpu is that because of the low TDP (77w) compared to Sandy Bridge (95w) is what makes Ivy Bridge harder to overclock. That point that you reach at 4.5ghz and 1.29v is the breaking point for the Ivy Bridge and to go further takes much more voltage then it took to get you to 4.5ghz and this is a well publishized fact that was uncovered once Ivy Bridge was released and put through all the benchmarks. It was stated then and is still true today that if you want to have a good overclocking cpu then go with Sandy Bridge. These articles will give you an ide of what I'm talking about.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/ivy-bridge-overclocking-high-temp,15512.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-overclocking-core-i7-3770k,3198.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i5-3570-low-power,3204.html

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ericjohn004

ericjohn004

Honorable
Oct 26, 2012
651
0
11,010


Yeah definitely not too nice. You also have to keep in mind that these are fully stable overclocks. Like 24/7 stable. Not, run some benchmarks, 10 passes of IBT stable like how most people seem to overclock their CPU's. I used to run mine at 4.8Ghz w/1.385vcore. And it was fine for a month or two. But then I crashed during a gaming session and since then I've always tested with hundred of passes of IBT and running all my games for hours at a time. Since then I've realized how unstable my 4.8Ghz overclock really was.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ericjohn004

ericjohn004

Honorable
Oct 26, 2012
651
0
11,010


Thanks for the info. Yeah I guess if your really into overclocking you could probably get a Sandy to do like 5.2Ghz on air while you can probably get an Ivy to do 4.8Ghz. I find most people with Sandy's usually stop at 4.8 and most people with Ivy's usually stop at 4.5. So in reality they both have processors the same speed. The only thing your paying for is new instructions and PCIe 3.0 and that stuff. And it takes an Sandy about .3-4Ghz more to keep up with an Ivy. So you give a little you get a little, they're about the same is what it boils down to. I'm perfectly happy at 4.5Ghz and I'm glad I have the new instuctions and PCIe 3.0 and all that good stuff too. Plus if I really wanted to get into overclocking I could always put a knife to my CPU, but I highly doubt I'll ever do that. Maybe once I get a whole new PC I'd do it just to try it.

I just bought my brother a PC. It has a 3570k and an H100i water cooler mounted in front of the case. So he should be cool enough to get to 4.8Ghz with his 3570k. Even if it does take 1.46v.

So you actually did research on this and you found that 3570k's usually peek at 4.5Ghz? That's like there stopping point and when you get there it start requiring massive amount of vcore?

Edit: I just read the Toms review of the overclocked 3770k and it seems I was wrong. A Sandy is about .25Ghz slower than an Ivy, not .3-4Ghz.

But yeah, Tom's does say that they get unstable anywheres past 4.5Ghz. And this is where I start having issues too so there you go.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
inzone

inzone

Champion
Mar 12, 2011
14,971
1
51,960
Acording to the article that I linked it appears that's the case and you even noticed it yourself when you got to around 4.5ghz area it started taking more voltage to get a small increase. The problem actually comes from the low TDP that Ivy cpus have and while Intel wanted to go with a lower TDP the side effect was a cpu that has a voltage problem with overclocking. Not that Intel is all that much concerned about people wanting to overclock thier cpus.
You are better off running at 4.5ghz and 1.29v because with overclocking you want to try and stay below 1.38v on the cpu because long term damage starts reducing the life of the cpu if it's constantly run at 1.38v or higher foe long periods of time. At your 4.6ghz and 1.385v you were right at the boarder line so what ever speed you get with the voltage at 1.38v or ;ower is what you should go with if you plan on keeping the cpu for long term.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ericjohn004

ericjohn004

Honorable
Oct 26, 2012
651
0
11,010


Thanks for the input, I'll keep that in mind. Is it the voltage that makes a CPU not last as long or is it the heat. Because, like I've said, my brother's getting a 3570k next week and he'll be overclocking, should he push past 1.385v since he'll be running cooler than I am?

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
inzone

inzone

Champion
Mar 12, 2011
14,971
1
51,960
The voltage is the determining factor and because your adding that voltage to the cpu there will be heat generated and while you may have a good cooling solution the heat will still be generated. People can get the wrong idea about overclocking and when you come down to it you really don't need to get to the very last ghz that you possibly can, it's not going to make that much difference. If the top ghz that you could get to was 4.6 and you stopped at 4.5 and were debating if you should go for it, what difference do you think that .1ghz will make in the performance of your computer.

Another thing to keep in mind is that there are those that overclock to be able to brag about thier cpu running 5.3ghz stable and voltage at 1.**v and the games are awsome and the pc runs fantastic ect, ect. Then you have those that overclock because they want an increase in overall performance but they want the Pc to last so they don't go 5.3 but 4.5 and 1.29v. So when you hear those people start saying that you should go higher remember maybe they don't know or don't care about the life of the cpu.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
ericjohn004

ericjohn004

Honorable
Oct 26, 2012
651
0
11,010


Yeah, that's true. And although I would like to be at 4.6Ghz, because most people stop at 4.5Ghz I would have liked to be a little higher than average but I don't care about it that much. I'm sticking with 4.5Ghz for sure. I think my PC will last long because I don't keep my PC on when I'm away and either way I'm getting a new one in 2015.

Thanks for all your help though, it would have been cool if more people came forward and presented their overclock but it's alright, I think I got the answer I was looking for.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom