Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Max Multiplier on 2600K is 42?

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
January 30, 2011 11:09:05 PM

2600k
Asus P8P67 Pro m/b

The max multiplier I can choose for a core is 42. I'm overclocking using BCLK but as I understand it that is not the preferred method.

I'm seeing that people are using multipliers much higher and for the life of me I can't figure out why I can't go beyond 42. I did do the "automatic" overclock with Asus Turbo EVO before I attempted the manual overclocking process.

Thanks in advance for any and all help.

More about : max multiplier 2600k

a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
a b Ĉ ASUS
January 31, 2011 12:42:38 AM

Yours is the second Sandy Bridge CPU that wouldn't go beyond 42x multiplier that I have heard of. Some CPUs are dogs, some are Olympic champs. What speed did the Turbo EVO process come up with?

Have you seen this thread? Has lots of useful info for your board and Sandy Bridge.

As for BCLK overclocking, most people who try get around 102-105MHz. I haven't heard of anyone getting beyond 110MHz.
m
0
l
January 31, 2011 12:55:18 AM

Thanks for your response. Guess that bargain price at MC was for a reason. :D 

I'm at 105.5 on BCLK with no problems. I've had it running for hours at 107+. I'll probably BCLK it to 4.5 and call it a day. I'm still thrilled with the performance of the upgrade I did. I did see that thread. It was my guideline for the overclocking. Turbo EVo came up with the 42 multiplier and a speed of 4326. I've been able to push quite a bit beyond that number.

Thanks again for the reply.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
January 31, 2011 1:29:58 AM

Did you update BIOS to newest version? The 1155 boards come with some glitchy BIOS I noticed. Are you saying that it doesn't even give you the option to enter a number larger than 42? On mine I can just type the multiplier number in for manual, but it won't boot into Windows at all on 4.9 ghz (49 x 100), but does @ 4.8. I haven't even tweaked the BCLK myself. Probably gonna keep mine on 4.5 for 24/7 too since I have really good vcore and temps there
m
0
l
January 31, 2011 2:04:50 AM

I've tried BIOS 1053 and now 1204. Still stuck at 42 as the maximum multiplier.

I'm running BCLK at 107.2 which results in an overclock of 4506. Looks like that is where I'll stay.
m
0
l
February 18, 2011 10:32:49 PM

So, some Sandy Bridge CPUs have different multipliers? One with 42x is a "dog". Would one with a max multi of 255x be an "Olympic champ"? I know it's not like I'm ever gonna get to use it, but it'd be cool to know!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
a b Ĉ ASUS
February 18, 2011 11:42:34 PM

Each Sandy Bridge processor has its own unique overclocking characteristics. It will have a "multiplier wall" that you cannot go beyond, no matter how much voltage you apply or how much you cool it down.

Once you hit that wall, you can only overclock further by using the BCLK. That throws the rest of the system's clocks out of whack, so you can't get above 110MHz. Most boards will only get 105MHz or so.

The absolute maximum multiplier on current Sandy Bridge CPUs is 57x. Yes, a "dog" would be 42x, "average joe" would be 45x and an "Olympic champ" would be 52x or higher. Mine's not quite at the Olympic level, as it maxes out at a 48x multiplier.
m
0
l
February 19, 2011 12:19:08 AM

Yeah, I thought 57x was the max, but I can set mine to 255x. I've seen some people can't even go above the stock multi on their "K" CPU. So, your's doesn't go over 48x?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
a b Ĉ ASUS
February 19, 2011 12:50:44 AM

Your BIOS or overclocking software might go up to 255x, but the CPU itself is limited to 57x and below.

I can boot with 51x and even 52x multipliers, but the system isn't stable. The maximum stable multiplier is 48x.

And when I say "stable" I mean it passes these tests:

1. 24 hours of Prime95 Torture Test using "In-place large FFTs" setting
2. 50 runs of IntelBurnTest v2.50 using Maximum setting
m
0
l
February 19, 2011 1:28:37 AM

I'm not sure what it is. I've talked to a couple people with the same mobo, same CPU, and same BIOS version and they don't have such an excessively high multi available. Heck, one of 'em can't even raise the CPU ratio at all!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
February 19, 2011 3:09:22 PM

First, if your having problems, DO NOT raise your BCLK, keep it at either 100 or 101 Max.
Keep your cpu multiplier at the default 34x and set the turbo multipliers to 45x45x45x45x (cores 1-4) or whatever you want to use and adjust your vcore and PLL to suit the speed selected.

Your system will run at 4.5 Ghz (above example) with any load at all.
m
0
l
February 19, 2011 9:52:54 PM

I don't think my processor is a "dog". It works fine. It just won't overclock as high as others which may not be a bad thing in the long run.

As to adjusting cpu multiplier or turbo multiplier. I am stuck with 42 as my max. In order to get a higher overclock I have no choice BUT to play with BCLK. I've chosen to do this but then again I can afford to buy another processor if I blow this one up.

My max overclock is BCLK at 107.4 and a mulitiplier of 42. This puts me a hair over 4.5 Ghz.

Thanks to all who provided help.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
a b Ĉ ASUS
February 20, 2011 2:01:30 AM

It's only a "dog" if your primary focus is overclocking until your system screams for mercy. Performance-wise, it's awesome and more than enough for pretty much anything you could throw at it. Hell, even the i5 2400 processor beats most i5s and i7s from previous generations.
m
0
l
February 20, 2011 5:56:52 AM

For the record, I've experimented with both the Turbo Ratio, and the CPU Ratio. The difference was when using the Turbo Ratio, I could not boot with a 50x multi. Using the CPU Ratio, I was able to boot at 50x using less voltage. It's not 100% stable at that (no BSODs, just IBT error), but I've been somewhat hesitant too exceed 1.4v by much. I've gone as far as 1.416v trying to get the 50x stable, but via the Turbo Ratio I couldn't get a boot at 1.44v.

It just seems like the CPU Ratio is more effective in my case (P8P67-M PRO & 2500K).

FWIW - I've seen the 2nd gen Core i outperform the 980X at the same clock. This is by the power of each core, not in reflection of excess cores/threads.
m
0
l
!