BCLK : 166
Ram Multi x8 : 1333mhz
Turbo boost, c1, eist : enabled
CPU VCore : 1.30625 - Normal
Dynamic Vcore : +0.00000v
Qpi/Vtt : 1.21
Results to x21 3,48ghz when 4 cores are active and x24 3,98ghz when 1 or 2 cores are active. Cpu-Z shows 1.280v when running prime95 temps don't go over 51C during the tests. Also it throttles down to 0.8v on idle.
The question is about an article written on Tom's about efficient overclocking with Turbo which suggested that 160 BCLK was the highest and most efficient OC. Am i voiding this efficiency by upping the BCLK to 166? Because the previous overclock i used was the same settings with 160 BCLK and the temps were the same.
Are the temps the only factor for efficiency or the volts pumped in the CPU? Because on 160 BCLK the cpu needed a range from 1.248v to 1.268v and now it hovers in the 1.28 to 1.30 area. Is that a big leap for a near 4ghz overclock?
EDIT : I would like to clear that 1.30625 is the CPU VID it isnt a value i have set in the bios.
Ram Multi x8 : 1333mhz
Turbo boost, c1, eist : enabled
CPU VCore : 1.30625 - Normal
Dynamic Vcore : +0.00000v
Qpi/Vtt : 1.21
Results to x21 3,48ghz when 4 cores are active and x24 3,98ghz when 1 or 2 cores are active. Cpu-Z shows 1.280v when running prime95 temps don't go over 51C during the tests. Also it throttles down to 0.8v on idle.
The question is about an article written on Tom's about efficient overclocking with Turbo which suggested that 160 BCLK was the highest and most efficient OC. Am i voiding this efficiency by upping the BCLK to 166? Because the previous overclock i used was the same settings with 160 BCLK and the temps were the same.
Are the temps the only factor for efficiency or the volts pumped in the CPU? Because on 160 BCLK the cpu needed a range from 1.248v to 1.268v and now it hovers in the 1.28 to 1.30 area. Is that a big leap for a near 4ghz overclock?
EDIT : I would like to clear that 1.30625 is the CPU VID it isnt a value i have set in the bios.