Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
sticky

Intel Overclocking Club - Page 2

Tags:
  • Overclocking
  • Intel
  • CPUs
Last response: in Overclocking
Share
a c 150 K Overclocking
a b å Intel
a c 186 à CPUs
July 17, 2012 2:53:50 AM

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 
July 17, 2012 4:14:56 PM

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!
July 17, 2012 4:47:31 PM

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.
Related resources
July 17, 2012 7:15:22 PM

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.
a c 110 K Overclocking
a b å Intel
a c 283 à CPUs
July 17, 2012 7:26:32 PM

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.
July 17, 2012 7:37:34 PM

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
July 17, 2012 9:40:13 PM

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.
July 17, 2012 9:42:28 PM

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.
July 17, 2012 10:39:04 PM

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
July 18, 2012 3:11:49 AM

What are your voltage levels for 4.4 and 4.5?
July 18, 2012 4:23:28 AM

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.
a c 249 K Overclocking
a c 110 à CPUs
July 18, 2012 10:03:53 AM

@amuffin

The darker blue background on your stable OC spreadsheet would be easier to read with white lettering.
July 18, 2012 10:26:45 PM

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: 
July 19, 2012 2:10:05 PM



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
July 20, 2012 4:18:26 AM

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.
July 20, 2012 6:08:25 PM

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?
a c 249 K Overclocking
a c 110 à CPUs
July 20, 2012 9:17:02 PM

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:

a c 249 K Overclocking
a c 110 à CPUs
July 20, 2012 9:21:54 PM

^ They left my door unlocked and I got out of my room! :lol: 
a c 150 K Overclocking
a b å Intel
a c 186 à CPUs
July 20, 2012 9:39:45 PM

20 18 20 20

5.3ghz

1.65V.


WTF!
a c 249 K Overclocking
a c 110 à CPUs
July 20, 2012 10:09:40 PM

Isn't it wonderful! :) 
a c 249 K Overclocking
a c 110 à CPUs
July 20, 2012 10:14:16 PM

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.
July 21, 2012 2:13:07 PM

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!
a c 249 K Overclocking
a c 110 à CPUs
July 21, 2012 2:38:16 PM

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.




July 22, 2012 2:04:52 AM

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.

a c 249 K Overclocking
a c 110 à CPUs
July 22, 2012 1:12:58 PM

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. :) 
July 24, 2012 1:56:18 AM

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

a c 150 K Overclocking
a b å Intel
a c 186 à CPUs
July 25, 2012 2:37:59 AM

Battlemachine lol.
a c 150 K Overclocking
a b å Intel
a c 186 à CPUs
July 28, 2012 3:31:51 AM

Don't cheat^^
a c 150 K Overclocking
a b å Intel
a c 186 à CPUs
July 28, 2012 5:20:33 PM

2 cores 2 threads ;P
July 29, 2012 2:44:13 AM

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.
a c 249 K Overclocking
a c 110 à CPUs
July 30, 2012 8:56:02 AM

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.
a c 249 K Overclocking
a c 110 à CPUs
July 30, 2012 9:44:44 AM

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
a c 249 K Overclocking
a c 110 à CPUs
July 30, 2012 10:00:25 AM

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
a c 150 K Overclocking
a b å Intel
a c 186 à CPUs
July 30, 2012 6:18:43 PM

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 :) 

August 1, 2012 6:11:35 AM

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.
a c 249 K Overclocking
a c 110 à CPUs
August 1, 2012 9:37:55 AM

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


August 1, 2012 7:56:19 PM

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.
a c 249 K Overclocking
a c 110 à CPUs
August 1, 2012 8:09:21 PM

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.
a c 249 K Overclocking
a c 110 à CPUs
August 1, 2012 8:12:51 PM

Quote:
is it true that the i7's clock higher with hyper-threading off or it's a myth and doesn't matter.?


Affirmative!
a c 249 K Overclocking
a c 110 à CPUs
August 1, 2012 8:15:07 PM

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.
a c 249 K Overclocking
a c 110 à CPUs
August 6, 2012 7:38:53 PM

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

a c 249 K Overclocking
a c 110 à CPUs
August 6, 2012 7:59:48 PM

^ I added something else to it, check that out too!
August 7, 2012 1:39:28 PM

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
August 7, 2012 2:03:08 PM

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.
August 7, 2012 2:55:17 PM

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?
a c 150 K Overclocking
a b å Intel
a c 186 à CPUs
August 7, 2012 2:56:02 PM

You could always use four uni's.
    • Previous
    • 2 / 12
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
      • 1
      • 2 / 12
      • 3
      • 4
      • 5
      • 6
      • 7
      • 8
      • 9
      • 10
!