Solved

Can't get 4670k Past 4.3ghz

Hey all,
I'll cut straight to the chase, i'm using an ASrock Extreme 3 (piece of crap, dont buy) and a 4670k and i can't seem to get it past 4.3 ghz. I can get 4ghz somewhat stable with just a multiplier change, (I only stress tested for about 30 minutes) and i can get 4.2 stable with Asrocks' 4.2ghz profile but when i go up past that, and increase the voltage to 1.0-1.1v it blue screens on start up.

Anyone have any idea whats stopping it? Also, this motherboards bios is a pain in the ass to use. If anyone has something past 4.2 stable then please let me know.
Also it it just me who prefers the old traditional blue bios' than these annoying mouse ones? I would chose to have my old gigabtye 990FX's bois over this every single time.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. :D
31 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about 4670k past 3ghz
  1. I don't have personal experience with the new 4670k, but I have an asrock board (extreme6). Don't use any of its profiles - they suck. That pretty much goes for any mobo's pre-made profiles. Also, the 4670k will not overclock as well as the previous generation and I wouldn't be surprised if 4.2ghz is the stable limit for your particular cpu/mobo.

    You should be safe to increase the voltage all the way to 1.3v (use either offset or the turbo boost volatage, or a combination of both). I also feel like its simply the mobo limiting how much you can overclock. Each mobo can only overclock so much.
  2. Best answer
    tomdabomb said:
    Hey all,
    I'll cut straight to the chase, i'm using an ASrock Extreme 3 (piece of crap, dont buy) and a 4670k and i can't seem to get it past 4.3 ghz. I can get 4ghz somewhat stable with just a multiplier change, (I only stress tested for about 30 minutes) and i can get 4.2 stable with Asrocks' 4.2ghz profile but when i go up past that, and increase the voltage to 1.0-1.1v it blue screens on start up.

    As I mentioned here yesterday, a lot of people are saying it's a combination of:-

    1. A small gap between the thermal compound (on the die) and the underside of the IHS. Ivy has this (Sandy was soldered) but Haswell's seem to be even worse on some chips.

    2. The inclusion of the voltage regulators on the chip. The heat that was formerly dissipated around the motherboard is now added to the CPU's thermal load.

    3. Haswell's automatically compensating for voltage drop under load by transparently adding up to an extra 0.1v as and when they feel like it (prior to this you did this manually on the motherboard) which is why they consume more load power in many benchmarks.

    Some people can't even push the 4670k past 4.2GHz, many retailers are saying it's a very poor OC'er on average (yes, you'll some people posting "Well I've got 4.7GHz on mine", etc, but *on average* far fewer chips can do this per batch of 100 than Ivy's). One guy in one forum complained of 85c temps at *stock* voltage at 4GHz! The solution? Honestly, I've no idea. The whole thing is as hot as it is due to its design. You could always try "delidding", but that's pretty risky. Sometimes you also just get "bad chips" which overclock poorly and have a higher stock voltage.

    PS: No it's not just you who prefers the old "Blue BIOS"
  3. That's... not Asrock's fault, dude. That's the fact that haswell SUCKS at overclocking. If you don't get a golden chip, you're doomed.
    (Given the average overclock of a haswell chip, Ivy Bridge actually ends up being the faster processor - it can almost always be pushed to 4.6-4.8, whereas Haswell can be pushed up to 4.5... if you get a good chip.)

    Here's Tom's Hardware.
    Quote:
    Our first-hand information involves a high double-digit number of processors, including samples and final shipping boxed CPUs. Sort testing was limited to 1.2 V to keep heat manageable. Ring/cache ratios are pegged at 3.9 GHz, with the memory controller operating at 1,333 MT/s. Of the chips available for sorting, only one is stable at 4.6 GHz under full load. A few are capable of operating at 4.5 GHz. More run stably at 4.4 GHz. Most are solid at 4.3 GHz and down. As you stretch above a 1,600 MT/s memory data rate or a ring ratio to match your highest single-core Turbo Boost ratio (which helps maximize performance), your top stable core frequency tends to drop.


    Overclockers.com guide to Haswell
    Quote:
    The first thing you need to know about Haswell you already found out in our review (read it here if you haven’t already) – it runs hot. You will need a lot more than the stock cooler if you want to overclock. With a very good air cooler or all-in-one water cooler, you’re looking at a heat limited voltage cap of about 1.25 V. At that voltage with air or AIO cooling, you’ll be seeing temperatures in the upper 80′s to lower 90′s (°C) range under normal full processor load.


    Tech Report's Review
    Quote:
    Asus has tested hundreds of Haswell CPUs as part of its effort to profile the chip for auto-tuning algorithms. According to the motherboard maker, Intel's new hotness has a little less overclocking headroom than Ivy Bridge does. Perhaps more importantly, Haswell apparently has more variance from chip to chip, especially in the voltages necessary to hit specific speeds.
  4. DarkSable said:
    That's... not Asrock's fault, dude. That's the fact that haswell SUCKS at overclocking. If you don't get a golden chip, you're doomed.
    (Given the average overclock of a haswell chip, Ivy Bridge actually ends up being the faster processor - it can almost always be pushed to 4.6-4.8, whereas Haswell can be pushed up to 4.5... if you get a good chip.)

    Here's Tom's Hardware.
    Quote:
    Our first-hand information involves a high double-digit number of processors, including samples and final shipping boxed CPUs. Sort testing was limited to 1.2 V to keep heat manageable. Ring/cache ratios are pegged at 3.9 GHz, with the memory controller operating at 1,333 MT/s. Of the chips available for sorting, only one is stable at 4.6 GHz under full load. A few are capable of operating at 4.5 GHz. More run stably at 4.4 GHz. Most are solid at 4.3 GHz and down. As you stretch above a 1,600 MT/s memory data rate or a ring ratio to match your highest single-core Turbo Boost ratio (which helps maximize performance), your top stable core frequency tends to drop.


    Overclockers.com guide to Haswell
    Quote:
    The first thing you need to know about Haswell you already found out in our review (read it here if you haven’t already) – it runs hot. You will need a lot more than the stock cooler if you want to overclock. With a very good air cooler or all-in-one water cooler, you’re looking at a heat limited voltage cap of about 1.25 V. At that voltage with air or AIO cooling, you’ll be seeing temperatures in the upper 80′s to lower 90′s (°C) range under normal full processor load.

    I had no idea, haswell was like that. I'm so shattered right now. I was getting ready for some awesome clocks. 4.2 is so boring. Also, i do think the bios is overly complicated. i think they should have kept it more traditional. Even after hearing that it isn't asrocks fault, i still feel as though it is somewhat limiting me.
    Another thing, my tems at 4.2 are about 60 in prime 95, small fft. Shouldn't i still be able to boot into windows with 4.3+? Not necessarily have it stable, but at least enter windows?
    Tech Report's Review
    Quote:
    Asus has tested hundreds of Haswell CPUs as part of its effort to profile the chip for auto-tuning algorithms. According to the motherboard maker, Intel's new hotness has a little less overclocking headroom than Ivy Bridge does. Perhaps more importantly, Haswell apparently has more variance from chip to chip, especially in the voltages necessary to hit specific speeds.
  5. ok, so i just realized i wasn't changing the voltage properly in the bios, god dammit, its so annoying IMO. so ive got it to 4.3 on what appears to be a 0.9vcore. Except i'm pretty sure i set it to 1.3. Meh, must be CPU-z glitching or something. Its running Prime 95 small fft at around 75 on 3 cores and 68 on one. i have a fain pointed into my computer to help out the literally $2 fan i'm using on my hyper 212. I old one stopped working and i couldn't replace it as its a public holiday. I guess i won't be getting any higher until i get a water cooling loop. That will be in some time as i am getting a 780 soon.
  6. I guarantee you it's not running at 4.3 GHz and .9v. :P

    That being said, even with a water cooling rig, you might not be able to get much higher than where you're at already - you shouldn't be going above 1.3v.
  7. Just delid it, if you use the hammer/block/vice method, you can't really ruin it like you can with the razor method.
  8. GMPoisoN said:
    Just delid it, if you use the hammer/block/vice method, you can't really ruin it like you can with the razor method.


    Haven't heard of that, but...

    1) Using a hammer on your CPU seems like an extremely stupid idea.

    2) Even though the razor can damage the chip, the risk doesn't come from that, it comes from handling the chip without any form of protection... so just removing the heatsink in a different way doesn't make that big of a difference.
  9. The Hammer/Vice/Block method is actually a lot safer than using a razor to delid the chip. All it does is dislodge the IHS, while with the razor method you have to pry it off, with a sharp object, very easy to accidentally gouge out some of the PCB.

    Of course I have done neither personally, just what I have seen.

    Anyway, far as I know Haswell overclocks even worse than Ivy does, wouldnt be surprised is 4.5Ghz was the maximum you could get too.
  10. DarkSable said:
    GMPoisoN said:
    Just delid it, if you use the hammer/block/vice method, you can't really ruin it like you can with the razor method.


    Haven't heard of that, but...

    1) Using a hammer on your CPU seems like an extremely stupid idea.

    2) Even though the razor can damage the chip, the risk doesn't come from that, it comes from handling the chip without any form of protection... so just removing the heatsink in a different way doesn't make that big of a difference.


    Search up vice method for delidding CPU. It's not a scary as it sounds, that was my first reaction to. All you're doing is literally "popping" or "sliding" the top off, there's no way to come in contact with the die. And the risk comes from you accidently tipping the razor downwards while cutting into it, slicing or scraping the die of the, thus destroying the CPU
  11. manofchalk said:
    The Hammer/Vice/Block method is actually a lot safer than using a razor to delid the chip. All it does is dislodge the IHS, while with the razor method you have to pry it off, with a sharp object, very easy to accidentally gouge out some of the PCB.

    Of course I have done neither personally, just what I have seen.

    Anyway, far as I know Haswell overclocks even worse than Ivy does, wouldnt be surprised is 4.5Ghz was the maximum you could get too.


    Ill be sure to make a post when I receive, delid, watercool, and OC mine, i'll be sure to share what kind of clocks I can get mine to hit.
  12. Now that's interesting, and not at all what I was expecting.

    Okay... I could see how that could be a good option... but you've still got the issue of an unprotected chip which is very easy to damage through pressure. You've got the guts to try to rig up a way to watercool the thing without an IHS, and I have to say, I admire that... but I don't have them. Even if I delidded my ivy bridge chip, it would just to be to replace the TIM. I wouldn't want to deal with the awful pain in the ass of trying to watercool a bare chip - my computer gives me enough pains as it is. :P
  13. 4.2Ghz sounds pretty good, I would just stick with that!
  14. tomdabomb said:
    Hey all,
    I'll cut straight to the chase, i'm using an ASrock Extreme 3 (piece of crap, dont buy) and a 4670k and i can't seem to get it past 4.3 ghz. I can get 4ghz somewhat stable with just a multiplier change, (I only stress tested for about 30 minutes) and i can get 4.2 stable with Asrocks' 4.2ghz profile but when i go up past that, and increase the voltage to 1.0-1.1v it blue screens on start up.

    Anyone have any idea whats stopping it? Also, this motherboards bios is a pain in the ass to use. If anyone has something past 4.2 stable then please let me know.
    Also it it just me who prefers the old traditional blue bios' than these annoying mouse ones? I would chose to have my old gigabtye 990FX's bois over this every single time.

    Any help would be greatly appreciated. :D



    Asrock BIOS is not the reason you're not OC'ing well as many have pointed out...it seems that there was a fair amount of "blue sky" in the ES's sent out to review sites.

    Hasfail is not the overclockers chip that people made it out to be. You may just have to live with what you can get, or sell your CPU/MB and buy IB. Which is what I have been recommending new builders to buy all along anyway.
  15. 8350rocks said:
    tomdabomb said:
    Hey all,
    I'll cut straight to the chase, i'm using an ASrock Extreme 3 (piece of crap, dont buy) and a 4670k and i can't seem to get it past 4.3 ghz. I can get 4ghz somewhat stable with just a multiplier change, (I only stress tested for about 30 minutes) and i can get 4.2 stable with Asrocks' 4.2ghz profile but when i go up past that, and increase the voltage to 1.0-1.1v it blue screens on start up.

    Anyone have any idea whats stopping it? Also, this motherboards bios is a pain in the ass to use. If anyone has something past 4.2 stable then please let me know.
    Also it it just me who prefers the old traditional blue bios' than these annoying mouse ones? I would chose to have my old gigabtye 990FX's bois over this every single time.

    Any help would be greatly appreciated. :D



    Asrock BIOS is not the reason you're not OC'ing well as many have pointed out...it seems that there was a fair amount of "blue sky" in the ES's sent out to review sites.

    Hasfail is not the overclockers chip that people made it out to be. You may just have to live with what you can get, or sell your CPU/MB and buy IB. Which is what I have been recommending new builders to buy all along anyway.


    We'll if he's got a hasfail it not after he delids, I don't like to hate on haswel when people get low clocks, because most of the time they don't have it water cooled, or delidded.
  16. GMPoisoN said:
    8350rocks said:
    tomdabomb said:
    Hey all,
    I'll cut straight to the chase, i'm using an ASrock Extreme 3 (piece of crap, dont buy) and a 4670k and i can't seem to get it past 4.3 ghz. I can get 4ghz somewhat stable with just a multiplier change, (I only stress tested for about 30 minutes) and i can get 4.2 stable with Asrocks' 4.2ghz profile but when i go up past that, and increase the voltage to 1.0-1.1v it blue screens on start up.

    Anyone have any idea whats stopping it? Also, this motherboards bios is a pain in the ass to use. If anyone has something past 4.2 stable then please let me know.
    Also it it just me who prefers the old traditional blue bios' than these annoying mouse ones? I would chose to have my old gigabtye 990FX's bois over this every single time.

    Any help would be greatly appreciated. :D



    Asrock BIOS is not the reason you're not OC'ing well as many have pointed out...it seems that there was a fair amount of "blue sky" in the ES's sent out to review sites.

    Hasfail is not the overclockers chip that people made it out to be. You may just have to live with what you can get, or sell your CPU/MB and buy IB. Which is what I have been recommending new builders to buy all along anyway.


    We'll if he's got a hasfail it not after he delids, I don't like to hate on haswel when people get low clocks, because most of the time they don't have it water cooled, or delidded.


    I am of the frame of mind that, if you have to go through all that hoopla to get it to do what the last gen would without all the extra work, why do it?

    People who want to get more out of the 4th gen Intels will need extravagant water cooling to make it work.
  17. 8350rocks said:
    GMPoisoN said:
    8350rocks said:
    tomdabomb said:
    Hey all,
    I'll cut straight to the chase, i'm using an ASrock Extreme 3 (piece of crap, dont buy) and a 4670k and i can't seem to get it past 4.3 ghz. I can get 4ghz somewhat stable with just a multiplier change, (I only stress tested for about 30 minutes) and i can get 4.2 stable with Asrocks' 4.2ghz profile but when i go up past that, and increase the voltage to 1.0-1.1v it blue screens on start up.

    Anyone have any idea whats stopping it? Also, this motherboards bios is a pain in the ass to use. If anyone has something past 4.2 stable then please let me know.
    Also it it just me who prefers the old traditional blue bios' than these annoying mouse ones? I would chose to have my old gigabtye 990FX's bois over this every single time.

    Any help would be greatly appreciated. :D



    Asrock BIOS is not the reason you're not OC'ing well as many have pointed out...it seems that there was a fair amount of "blue sky" in the ES's sent out to review sites.

    Hasfail is not the overclockers chip that people made it out to be. You may just have to live with what you can get, or sell your CPU/MB and buy IB. Which is what I have been recommending new builders to buy all along anyway.


    We'll if he's got a hasfail it not after he delids, I don't like to hate on haswel when people get low clocks, because most of the time they don't have it water cooled, or delidded.


    I am of the frame of mind that, if you have to go through all that hoopla to get it to do what the last gen would without all the extra work, why do it?

    People who want to get more out of the 4th gen Intels will need extravagant water cooling to make it work.


    Good point, you shouldn't have to go through all that. If you're talking about me personally, I will have a nice watercooling loop, and don't mind going through all of that, as I hope to one day have a career in custom builds.
  18. 8350rocks said:
    I am of the frame of mind that, if you have to go through all that hoopla to get it to do what the last gen would without all the extra work, why do it?

    People who want to get more out of the 4th gen Intels will need extravagant water cooling to make it work.


    Holy cow, we actually agree on something!? :P

    I second this guys' vote though, that Haswell is a silly option when, aside from the rare golden chip, Ivy Bridge can easily overclock to the point where it's faster than an overclocked Haswell chip. Sure, you can de-lid and try to rig up a way to get enough pressure to successfully watercool the chip without damaging it... but why in the world would you go through that?
  19. DarkSable said:
    8350rocks said:
    I am of the frame of mind that, if you have to go through all that hoopla to get it to do what the last gen would without all the extra work, why do it?

    People who want to get more out of the 4th gen Intels will need extravagant water cooling to make it work.


    Holy cow, we actually agree on something!? :P

    I second this guys' vote though, that Haswell is a silly option when, aside from the rare golden chip, Ivy Bridge can easily overclock to the point where it's faster than an overclocked Haswell chip. Sure, you can de-lid and try to rig up a way to get enough pressure to successfully watercool the chip without damaging it... but why in the world would you go through that?


    You're right, maybe I will just go with Ivy, either way I will still delid it hopefully for a higher clock. Why go through it? I enjoy doing that sort of stuff, and if I can get lower temps and a faster CPU out of it, awesome!
  20. DarkSable said:
    8350rocks said:
    I am of the frame of mind that, if you have to go through all that hoopla to get it to do what the last gen would without all the extra work, why do it?

    People who want to get more out of the 4th gen Intels will need extravagant water cooling to make it work.


    Holy cow, we actually agree on something!? :P

    I second this guys' vote though, that Haswell is a silly option when, aside from the rare golden chip, Ivy Bridge can easily overclock to the point where it's faster than an overclocked Haswell chip. Sure, you can de-lid and try to rig up a way to get enough pressure to successfully watercool the chip without damaging it... but why in the world would you go through that?


    LOL...how on earth did that happen?! When I started reading I was going to +1 your first post, but I was having issues reconciling the fact that we were in agreement. (I was in shock)
  21. People agreeing on the Internet!
    What is this madness, 4Chan did not prepare me for this! :lol:

    On a lighter note, the term "Hasfail" that's been brought up. I distinctly remember people people referring to Faildozer when the Bulldozer architecture came out.
    Oh how the times have changed (well, not really).

    Also I'm pretty sure a lot of people had this same mentality when Ivy Bridge released and it was found to be a poor overclocker compared to Sandy. But now you are holding it up as the standard, which Haswell fails to achieve. Probably, we will look to Haswell and say its the superior overclocker compared to Broadwell.
    Of course, none of that matters, in a month or two you wont be able to buy Ivy chips. You have to go Haswell whether it runs hot or not.
  22. manofchalk said:

    Also I'm pretty sure a lot of people had this same mentality when Ivy Bridge released and it was found to be a poor overclocker compared to Sandy. But now you are holding it up as the standard, which Haswell fails to achieve. Probably, we will look to Haswell and say its the superior overclocker compared to Broadwell.
    Of course, none of that matters, in a month or two you wont be able to buy Ivy chips. You have to go Haswell whether it runs hot or not.


    +1
  23. manofchalk said:
    People agreeing on the Internet!
    What is this madness, 4Chan did not prepare me for this! :lol:

    On a lighter note, the term "Hasfail" that's been brought up. I distinctly remember people people referring to Faildozer when the Bulldozer architecture came out.
    Oh how the times have changed (well, not really).

    Also I'm pretty sure a lot of people had this same mentality when Ivy Bridge released and it was found to be a poor overclocker compared to Sandy. But now you are holding it up as the standard, which Haswell fails to achieve. Probably, we will look to Haswell and say its the superior overclocker compared to Broadwell.
    Of course, none of that matters, in a month or two you wont be able to buy Ivy chips. You have to go Haswell whether it runs hot or not.



    8350rocks and I have, well... a bit of a history. :P

    That being said, the problem isn't that Haswell runs hot, the problem is that it overclocks SO badly that the average Ivy Bridge chip is faster than the average similar Haswell chip.

    Besides, Sandy Bridge is still widely available, though not at a discount. Why shouldn't Ivy Bridge turn out to be the same thing?
  24. Wow, a bunch of comments bashing Haswell, yet neither of the people replying sound like they own one. Not to be rude, but reviews aren't the only thing you should use in order to give people advice.

    To the OP: Overclocking with Haswell is quite different than it was with the older CPUs. In order to get a good stable OC with these chips, you'll need to change the settings on the core (multiplier and vcore), as well as adjusting the settings for the Ring/Cache/Uncore (whatever your board is calling it - mine uses Ring). Its a good idea to set the Ring multi at the stock setting (34 to start out with), and tune the Core Oc first. Once you have a stable OC on the core, then you can start working on the RAM and Ring settings.

    Above all else: make sure that you are NOT running stability/stress tests while using the "adaptive" voltage settings, and Prime95 is not the best anymore - AIDA64 would be better.
  25. blaze2210 said:
    Wow, a bunch of comments bashing Haswell, yet neither of the people replying sound like they own one. Not to be rude, but reviews aren't the only thing you should use in order to give people advice.

    To the OP: Overclocking with Haswell is quite different than it was with the older CPUs. In order to get a good stable OC with these chips, you'll need to change the settings on the core (multiplier and vcore), as well as adjusting the settings for the Ring/Cache/Uncore (whatever your board is calling it - mine uses Ring). Its a good idea to set the Ring multi at the stock setting (34 to start out with), and tune the Core Oc first. Once you have a stable OC on the core, then you can start working on the RAM and Ring settings.

    Above all else: make sure that you are NOT running stability/stress tests while using the "adaptive" voltage settings, and Prime95 is not the best anymore - AIDA64 would be better.


    Nice! 120 day old necro...let it die man, just let it die.
  26. Apologies, I saw the date after I posted my response....Nothing wrong with a little necromancy here and there.... :)
  27. Not being smug, but i am getting 4.3ghz at 1.268volts stable as a rock. Anywhere past that is a no go cos of the 83c temperatures on my Hyper TX3 Evo.
  28. Chris Mann said:
    Not being smug, but i am getting 4.3ghz at 1.268volts stable as a rock. Anywhere past that is a no go cos of the 83c temperatures on my Hyper TX3 Evo.


    The last non-necro post in this thread was the beginning of LAST JUNE.

    I'm pretty sure you are being smug, especially since you contributed nothing in this post except trying to brag about your overclock... which really isn't impressive at all.
  29. DarkSable said:
    Chris Mann said:
    Not being smug, but i am getting 4.3ghz at 1.268volts stable as a rock. Anywhere past that is a no go cos of the 83c temperatures on my Hyper TX3 Evo.


    The last non-necro post in this thread was the beginning of LAST JUNE.

    I'm pretty sure you are being smug, especially since you contributed nothing in this post except trying to brag about your overclock... which really isn't impressive at all.


    1. I am not bragging because some people achieve much better overclocks on air than i do.
    2. Threads can be posted on whenever they like. If the threads are still open for posting then people can post WHENEVER they like... Regardless of how many months ago the thread was created. So yeah as far as i am aware, if threads are still open then they are open to posts and should be posted on.
  30. Chris Mann said:

    1. I am not bragging because some people achieve much better overclocks on air than i do.
    2. Threads can be posted on whenever they like. If the threads are still open for posting then people can post WHENEVER they like... Regardless of how many months ago the thread was created. So yeah as far as i am aware, if threads are still open then they are open to posts and should be posted on.


    The only content in your post was saying that you "weren't being smug" and then telling your overclock. That's pretty much bragging, even if people do achieve better overclocks.

    And no, it really doesn't work like that. This thread has been SOLVED for eight months, and the conversation is done - just because the thread isn't locked doesn't mean you should come in here and necro it with a point that contributes nothing, sending a notification to the people who posted in here long ago and annoying them.

    Necroing is bad form, plain and simple. It's rude, and in 99% of the cases, totally unhelpful.
  31. I had the same problem and my solution was.......new intel drivers!!! I was stable below 4.2 but beyond that something was really wrong...i was able to boot but when i was in windows suddenly bsod...then i downloaded latest intel drivers and i got 4.6GHz pretty damn good for a driver update!!!!
Ask a new question