Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Do i own the worst 2500k in the world?

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
January 26, 2013 8:17:44 AM

After a year and a half of my mild overclock of 4.2 on stock volts i decided i wanna test the limits of my CPU.

I enabled PLL overvoltage, set power and current limits to my CPU (Biostar board) and started upping the turbo.

All said and done, best i did was booted into windows at 4.7 (4.8-5.0 blue screened) but instantly blue screened when i opened prime 95, this was at 1.39 volts (surely this is enough).

I havent tried 4.5 or 4.6 because i was so disappointed that i couldnt do 4.7 or higher, but i did find out my 4.2 overclock with stock bios settings is actually just as stable at 4.4......so there is that i guess.

Worst part about this is my temps are absolutely amazing. At 4.4ghz my CPU will not cross 57c using a Hyper 212+. Pity that i got such a crap chip, heh.

More about : worst 2500k world

a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
January 26, 2013 8:28:52 AM

Booster isn't exactly known for quality overclocking boards....
m
0
l
a c 106 K Overclocking
a c 233 à CPUs
January 26, 2013 8:34:35 AM

This is worth reading.


http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1036716419&postcoun...

1. Approximately 50% of CPUs can go up to 4.4~4.5 GHz
2. Approximately 40% of CPUs can go up to 4.6~4.7 GHz
3. Approximately 10% of CPUs can go up to 4.8~5 GHz (50+ multipliers are about 2% of this group)
m
0
l
Related resources
January 26, 2013 9:04:13 AM

Well i guess that makes me fell a little better haha.

Also, i purchased this motherboard in a combo deal with a 2500k from microcenter. I think it was 40 dollars lol.

Maybe i will try 4.5-4.6 tomorrow. If anyone stumbles upon this thread with a TP67B+ board id love to hear if/how you got high clocks with it.
m
0
l
January 26, 2013 9:05:50 AM

On a side note, it appears i might have the fastest GTX 465 ever made, i just hit 970mhz core (from 607 stock lol). It hit 90c in furmark, but didnt crash!
m
0
l
January 26, 2013 9:10:35 AM

One more thing if anyone reads this post, is there any point in changing the CPU multiplier in bios? I just dont understand why it exists when on sandy bridge the overclocking is done with the turbo.

I ask because i see people do it both ways. I personally just leave mine at stock 3.3 and bump each turbo core up to what i want it set to.
m
0
l
January 26, 2013 11:47:10 AM

I think if i had to guess, its the mobo. I wanted to help out a friend with a $500 build and picked a biostar for a red and black theme. The first one came with a dead sata controller, but the second worked. What really turned me off was the bios. I figure if they did so little research on spelling and grammer in the bios, how much did they do on design and testing.
m
0
l
a c 239 K Overclocking
a c 103 à CPUs
January 26, 2013 1:42:19 PM

@ Scotty99, Your problem is not your 2500K, it is probably the Biostar motherboard you're trying to overclock it with.

When you attempted 47x at 1.39v the rest of your BIOS settings have everything to do with that being a successful boot.

A lot of us that have tested the 2500K voltage vs heat vs performance gains have chosen to run 45x in the 1.325v range plus or minus, however the rest of your BIOS settings seriously come into play at becoming stable.

I'm not familiar with the Biostar BIOS settings to tell you what to do without you listing your available options
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
January 26, 2013 2:27:15 PM

A quality motherboards that provides clean power to you CPU is essential, Phases, VRM and other power deliever components are needed. Look at my overclock, it has been running stable for a year now.

Before the UD5H I had an MSI Z77 G65 board which is also excellent but I could only squeeze out 4.7Ghz tops.
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
January 26, 2013 3:35:31 PM

Try vcore 1.38
Multiplier 47
PLL enabled 1.8v
LLC set that to extreme
XMP for the memory

leave all other settings at default
m
0
l
January 26, 2013 3:40:22 PM

I cannot change PLL voltage (disabled or enabled) nor the LLC setting (again enabled or disabled)

I do use XMP for memory.

What is with the CPU load and power limit settings on my board, i just copied his settings of 120amp on current settings, and 300w for each of the power settings.

In the last screenshot should i enable intel virtualization tech like he did? I read up on it and it does not seem relevant to an overclock.
m
0
l
January 26, 2013 3:43:02 PM

One more thing, as i asked earlier whats the deal with CPU ratio? In that screenshot he used 47 and his turbo cores to 48. I guess im just confused on why you wouldnt just leave the CPU ratio to 33 and let the turbo do all of the overclocking.

I tried matching my CPU ratio to turbo but speedstep did not work when i tried this, when i left cpu ratio at 33 and turned all turbo to my current 4.4 overclock speedstep works fine.
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
January 26, 2013 4:10:07 PM

needs more vcore. I can clock my cpu up over 5.1ghz, but once you start going to 4.7ish and above, it requires quite a bit more volts.

your temps are fine so i would say go for it. sandys are good up to and over 1.5 volts. dont be scared. i have been running at 1.44 volts for the last 2 years, with 24/7 operation. no problems.
m
0
l
January 26, 2013 4:21:41 PM

Those arent my screenshots, ive tried 1.42 volts at 4.8 it wouldnt even boot into windows. I got 4.7 into windows but insta blue screen when i opened prime 95.
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
January 26, 2013 4:23:36 PM

probably the motherboard and not a bum cpu.

10 bucks says that cpu would hit 5ghz with an asrock board.

when i was researching on what mobo to get i noticed that on average asrock boards were hitting 4.9 ghz where as gigabyte was only hitting 4.6-4.7. asus was inbetween.
m
0
l
January 26, 2013 4:33:29 PM

One more thing, why does CPU-Z report anywhere from 4.1-4.4 when running prime. Is this because i left my CPU ratio at 33 and overclocked the multiplier? My goal is to have it either run at 1.6ghz speedstep or full on 4.4 turbo. Problem with that is when i try and set my CPU ratio to match turbo speedstep does not work for some reason : (
m
0
l
a c 106 K Overclocking
a c 233 à CPUs
January 26, 2013 4:33:54 PM

Scotty99 said:
One more thing if anyone reads this post, is there any point in changing the CPU multiplier in bios? I just dont understand why it exists when on sandy bridge the overclocking is done with the turbo.

I ask because i see people do it both ways. I personally just leave mine at stock 3.3 and bump each turbo core up to what i want it set to.


You can do it either way. In fact I believe most of us use the multiplier and disable Turbo. Hell try it. You may get better results with a multiplier overclock on that motherboard.
m
0
l
January 26, 2013 4:56:43 PM

Ok so this is just weird, i can only get speedstep to work when i do this exactly:

1. Leave CPU ratio at stock (33) and adjust the turbo.

Will not enter speedstep:

1. Disabling turbo and adjusting CPU ratio
2. Moving CPU ratio to anything other than 33

So i guess im leaving CPU ratio at 33 lol. Kinda bothers me tbh because i hate seeing my frequency bounce from 4.1-4.4 during prime, just weird. But on the other hand i really want all the power saving features enabled, i like the idea of my PC being super power efficient while browsing the web etc, and then full speed during load, i dont like any middle ground lol.
m
0
l
January 26, 2013 4:59:18 PM

When i disable turbo on my board it does go into speedstep, but it does NOT overclock properly. Example:

CPU ratio 44
Turbo disabled
Speedstep enabled.

It goes to 1.6 idle but under load it only goes to 3.3, which makes zero sense because i didnt tell it anywhere in the bios to run at that speed lol/
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
January 26, 2013 5:00:11 PM

You need a higher quality motherboard, it's most likely the motherboard is a piece of junk.

Turbo mode is okay for a instant overclock without tweaking, but changing the multiplier to your desired overclock and adjusting voltages will be better.

1.39 voltage is to high in my opinion, you should be a bit lower.

A quality motherboard is essential for a good overclock as well as a quality power supply.

For example, I am undervotling at 4.2ghz with 1.5PLL and (-0.85) offset with a 2500k maxing 1.210v on prime95(another chip I used was doing 1.160v), and this isn't the only 2500k I've done this with. These were all stable after hours of prime95 and weeks running 24\7 without a single crash.

You don't need to even go above 4.5ghz too unless your playing CPU intensive games that it might help with.

Asus and Gigabyte make very good boards, get a good Z68 board and make sure your power supply unit is good.

So make sure you use offset, multiplier, and make sure to keep the BLCK at 100, and keep on Intel Speed Step.

If this you're still having the issues after a motherboard change, return the processor for a replacement, if still issues, it could be the power supply.
m
0
l
January 26, 2013 5:09:57 PM

Honestly, im fine with where im at now for a couple reasons, im just slightly disappointed i couldnt even get into windows at 4-8-5.0 when you hear of so many 2500k's doing so.

1. With "spec voltage" in the bios my idle volts are .972 and max volts at load as measured by HWmonitor is 1.296.
2. Temps never go above 58c during prime95 at 4.4.

I mean really, thats pretty good for a 40 dollar motherboard lol. ( i got this with a 2500k for 210 bucks a year and a half ago, this is when 2500k were 229.00 bucks at newegg)

If anyone has a p67 or z68 mobo from a past sandy bridge build they have leftover after upgrading to a z77/ivy system i may be interested, if only to see if the "problem" is my CPU or mobo.

1.296v is pretty reasonable for 4.4 tho dont you think? I also love how low the volts go at idle.

m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
January 26, 2013 5:14:37 PM

That's true. You really don't need 4.8-5.0ghz unless your doing a more extreme system too. Those temperatures are acceptable too; as well as the voltage. I wouldn't trust a Biostar motherboard personally though. I think your set for gaming.

m
0
l
January 26, 2013 5:29:49 PM

Here is the thing, i own the entry level biostar board, the one up from mine is more aimed at overclocking, but it was not available at microcenter when i purchased it.

I think biostar quality is just as good as asus/msi/gigabyte etc, but here is the problem:

Not as many people own the board so there is less info on the internet when you are overclocking. If i bought a asus board i wouldnt even have to post on these forums because i could easily find bios settings on the web.

Do this for a laugh, search yahoo for "biostar tp67b+ overclocking" there is literally one thread that is actually relevant and useful lol. I think for this reason alone i am going to buy an asus or msi board in my next build, but i honestly think biostar is just as quality as the big guys, and i would even go as far as saying that for the money (lower end msi/asus boards) biostar is better built.
m
0
l
a c 239 K Overclocking
a c 103 à CPUs
January 26, 2013 11:02:18 PM

Scotty99 said:
Here is the thing, i own the entry level biostar board, the one up from mine is more aimed at overclocking, but it was not available at microcenter when i purchased it.

I think biostar quality is just as good as asus/msi/gigabyte etc, but here is the problem:

Not as many people own the board so there is less info on the internet when you are overclocking. If i bought a asus board i wouldnt even have to post on these forums because i could easily find bios settings on the web.

Do this for a laugh, search yahoo for "biostar tp67b+ overclocking" there is literally one thread that is actually relevant and useful lol. I think for this reason alone i am going to buy an asus or msi board in my next build, but i honestly think biostar is just as quality as the big guys, and i would even go as far as saying that for the money (lower end msi/asus boards) biostar is better built.


Biostar is a main stream motherboard, as far as I know Biostar has never thrown their hat into the overclocking arena, that's why your board is limited regarding overclocking adjustments. Just because the motherboard looks like it is made well, doesn't mean anything in the overclocking world, it has to have overclocking BIOS capability. The four horsemen of the overclocking world are ASUS, ASRock, Gigabyte, and MSI, and even at that, you have to buy an overclocking motherboard in their brand line.

m
0
l
January 27, 2013 2:48:53 AM

Ok guys i havent given up yet, im in the middle of a prime 95 run and its been about 30 mins with no blue screens.

Im running 4.6ghz with 1.356v, the offset before this crashed. My temps are 10c higher than my stock clock of 4.2ghz, now maxxing out at 68-69c, which i can live with.

If this has errors or crashes with 1.356v how much farther should i go? I mean i will just up the offset one notch, but is anything under 1.4 generally safe?
m
0
l
January 27, 2013 2:49:55 AM

One more thing, i did find the PLL voltage in my bios. The lowest it let me set it to was 1.8, i am not sure what auto was (i think i read somewhere auto PLL is 1.83).

m
0
l
January 27, 2013 3:09:52 AM

Ugh it just crashed again lol.

So now my voltage offset is .08 which results in either 1.368 OR 1.380 volts, im not sure because it keeps switching between those numbers during prime (exact same numbers in cpu-z and HWmonitor). Temps are still below 70c. If it crashes again im going to try one more bump of offset, if i crashes then im going to try 4.5ghz with a lower vcore.
m
0
l
a c 150 K Overclocking
a c 186 à CPUs
January 27, 2013 3:24:15 AM

Is there any real reason you need something more than 4.2ghz? Right now that should be very fast for all your needs.
m
0
l
January 27, 2013 3:45:36 AM

Actually i read a large article today that said 4.6 completely removes CPU bottlenecks, plus its kind of fun doing this stuff. Its been like 40 mins on this new prime run with .08 offset and so far everything is ok. Volts are at 1.368 far more often than 1.38 now, so i think that is where my voltage is sticking.
m
0
l
January 27, 2013 5:06:49 AM

*** me lol. It crashed after 2 hours with .08 offset. I am giving this once last try at .09 offset, which translates to 1.380v.

Has anyone ever heard of such high volts for only 4.6? I mean my temps are good and all, its just that i see the majority of people doing it with far less.
m
0
l
a c 239 K Overclocking
a c 103 à CPUs
January 27, 2013 12:29:55 PM

This is for an ASRock motherboard but if you're that determined to overclock try using it, you'll have to compare what you can and cannot change in the bios settings, but it may work for you.
m
0
l
January 28, 2013 6:28:31 AM

Biostar lol

Just get an asrock and u are good to go
m
0
l
January 28, 2013 6:28:51 AM

Biostar lol

Just get an asrock and u are good to go
m
0
l
January 28, 2013 6:29:59 AM

Biostar lol

Just get an asrock and u are good to go
m
0
l
a c 106 K Overclocking
a c 233 à CPUs
January 28, 2013 8:28:01 AM

Triple post much? :sarcastic: 
m
0
l
!