Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

4.5Ghz with 3570k

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
February 12, 2013 3:57:38 PM

Forgive me for putting up yet another 3570k OC post...

For the past few months I've been content with a moderate overclock of this chip at 4.2Ghz (all cores, voltage offset -0.065, LLC level 5) - but a few days ago I was inspired to try a little bump with my OC, the issue is that it seems like there needs to be a whole different approach in passing the 4.2Ghz mark. All the guides (pro and amateur) all seem to lead me to conclude that we're more or less on our own once we try high-moderate OC'ing (such as anything over 4.2Ghz) and this is why I am writing here - to see if anyone can shed some light on where I currently stand. Am I way off the mark, or on the right track, or basically spot on with where I want to be. Funny thing is that most forums out there are based on people wanting to reach 4.5Ghz but this is the point where there simply seems to be no consensus.

Anyways, here's where I stand atm:

4.5Ghz with LLC Level 2 at Offset Voltage +0.035 --> this provides a stable system (not tested long-term) with the following outcomes:

Avg. Temps range (idle/load): 20-30c / 65-82c (depending on the core)
Operating voltages (idle/load): ~1.062 / ~1.320 (of course these numbers fluctuate during testing/idling, but these are the numbers I see cpuz display the most often and longest.)

Do these look reasonable? Any feedback? The Load Line Calibration settings confuse me a little even after reading much info on them. Same thing with Offset Voltages - the calculations I've read (Vcore - VID = optimal offset) don't seem to really fit well. I do want to stick with Offset as I can't get my mind wrapped around running full constant voltages through the cores even when it's idling.

More about : 5ghz 3570k

a c 104 å Intel
a c 314 K Overclocking
February 12, 2013 7:32:14 PM

What is cooling the CPU stock or aftermarket.
m
0
l
a c 104 å Intel
a c 314 K Overclocking
February 12, 2013 7:33:45 PM

Even with a budget cooler you can get a higher OC.
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 104 å Intel
a c 314 K Overclocking
February 12, 2013 7:34:34 PM

82c < is high.
m
0
l
February 13, 2013 3:18:25 PM

I'm using a V8 (cooler master) with ARCTIC MX-4 paste. The thing about the temps is that I've read how IB runs hot once a certain voltage threshold is exceeded - the redeeming factor I suppose is that by using offset voltage is that 80% of the time this PC is turned on, the CPU will run under-clocked, and I've read that there's no real danger until temps seems to hover around the 90c (that still being 15c away from specs) mark with these processors. Though I understand the temp concerns, and I agree...

A little update though - I really didn't enjoy the high voltages and the uncomfortable temps, so by dropping down to 4.4Ghz, I can drop the offset voltage down to +0.20, LLC level 3 - this results in idle temps going down about 5c but load temps going down almost 15c. The voltage at load also drops down to around 1.270.
m
0
l

Best solution

a b K Overclocking
February 14, 2013 12:27:20 PM

That all looks good. Your voltages and temperatures are within safety limits. Just make sure to put it through its paces for a stability test.

I've been running my system with very similar results for a while now, very much stable.

I'm at 4.5 GHz, using a Hyper 212 EVO with two Excalibur fans on it. My idle is about 1.05 and my load is about 1.276. Temperatures from 25-34 / 77-83 C.

The thing is, temperatures in Prime95 don't really indicate what your CPU will really be doing under normal operation. Those are extreme limits. Normal gaming on StarCraft 2 caps my temps at around 54-60C. Even if I was hitting around 80, that is still safe for your CPU.

Your lower idle temps and voltages will ensure a long lifespan for the CPU, assuming there are no fluke design flaws or something. In my opinion, your 4.5GHz seemed perfectly safe and shouldn't concern you. But the bottom line is to go with what you are comfortable with.

And the reason things get a little unclear in the higher end of overclocking is that subtle manufacturing differences make each otherwise identical chip have different limits. It actually sounds like yours might be quite similar to my own, whereas some people have managed 5GHz on it while barely pushing beyond 1.4V. Others can't even make it beyond 4.3GHz.

I think you are on the right track. Like I said, the 4.5 numbers sound good, but if you don't want to do that, 4.4 wouldn't be far behind.
Share
February 14, 2013 7:51:29 PM

Best answer selected by omnimodis78.
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
February 15, 2013 12:38:48 PM

With my i5 3570k I keep it at 4.7Ghz all the time. I REALLY don't like my CPU to be dipping and diving up and down depending on how I use it. To me this puts extra stress on your CPU. But that's just me. Other people see it differently.

You really should use Intel Burn In Test to check for temps. Prime95 will give you temps 10-15C cooler than that of IBT. So really your in the neighborhood of 90-95C. Which I would say is pretty high for a 4.5Ghz overclock. With my CPU at 4.5Ghz in prime95 my hottest core is at 72C. But I do have a better CPU cooler than you do so that may be where the 10C difference comes in and that's why I'm glad I spent at least 50 bucks on a CPU cooler.

Overall though I think your overclock is fine. As long as you are happy with it an as long as your temps don't get over 75C during normal usage you should be fine. But do yourself a favor and run Intel Burn In Test to see what your TRUE temps are and to see if your REALLY stable.
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
February 15, 2013 12:56:36 PM

There's really no need for that test. Normal operation will never even bring you up to what Prime95 does. That's just overkill. Also, the stability is just as easily tested with Prime. If there is a problem, it will find it.
m
0
l
February 15, 2013 2:21:55 PM

ericjohn004 said:
With my i5 3570k I keep it at 4.7Ghz all the time. I REALLY don't like my CPU to be dipping and diving up and down depending on how I use it. To me this puts extra stress on your CPU. But that's just me. Other people see it differently.

You really should use Intel Burn In Test to check for temps. Prime95 will give you temps 10-15C cooler than that of IBT. So really your in the neighborhood of 90-95C. Which I would say is pretty high for a 4.5Ghz overclock. With my CPU at 4.5Ghz in prime95 my hottest core is at 72C. But I do have a better CPU cooler than you do so that may be where the 10C difference comes in and that's why I'm glad I spent at least 50 bucks on a CPU cooler.

Overall though I think your overclock is fine. As long as you are happy with it an as long as your temps don't get over 75C during normal usage you should be fine. But do yourself a favor and run Intel Burn In Test to see what your TRUE temps are and to see if your REALLY stable.

Well you failed to mention your voltages, your cooler (the V8 is not entry level or a budget air cooler) but I'm also glad I spent $60 on my cooler. :D  I've seen temps at the same settings as mine higher even when people were using water cooling...

Keeping your CPU at a constant 4.7Ghz is downright scary. For someone whose concerned about "extra stress" on the CPU, you conveniently seem to ignore the fact that you're overclocking it and disabling all power saving features Intel engineers very smartly and appropriately researched and put into your chip to keep it cool and power efficient. I've never heard that there's any quantifiable evidence or measurement to indicate that this "dipping and diving" degrades the CPU. Maybe it's there, but I think your strategy shortens the life of that chip more than the alternative would/could. You should look into that.
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
February 15, 2013 4:12:09 PM

omnimodis78 said:
Well you failed to mention your voltages, your cooler (the V8 is not entry level or a budget air cooler) but I'm also glad I spent $60 on my cooler. :D  I've seen temps at the same settings as mine higher even when people were using water cooling...

Keeping your CPU at a constant 4.7Ghz is downright scary. For someone whose concerned about "extra stress" on the CPU, you conveniently seem to ignore the fact that you're overclocking it and disabling all power saving features Intel engineers very smartly and appropriately researched and put into your chip to keep it cool and power efficient. I've never heard that there's any quantifiable evidence or measurement to indicate that this "dipping and diving" degrades the CPU. Maybe it's there, but I think your strategy shortens the life of that chip more than the alternative would/could. You should look into that.

I'd have to agree. Offsetting the voltage for lower idle settings seems to be the way to go. I don't think it is the changing that damages it, but rather being at full load.
m
0
l
!