Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Should I push For more???? GHZ

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Crash
  • Overclocking
Last response: in Overclocking
Share
February 26, 2013 10:55:23 AM

Overnight I allowed Prime 95 to run and system did not crash and no vertical gray lines appeared as before at vCore of 1.296. The maxim temp reached was 83c so can assume this system is stable at 1.340 vCore and 4.5 Ghz ?

If I was able to boot and run Black Ops II at 4.7 Ghz once and system did not crash. Do you think it is possible to up Vcore more and see if the CPU will be stable there as well? This is just a thought!

Will I even notice a difference in gaming at a speed 4.7 Ghz over the 4.5Ghz setup I have now? :heink:  :hello: 

More about : push ghz

February 26, 2013 11:35:05 AM

I don't think you will have a noticeable difference, and 1.35v is the point of not safe for cpu.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
February 26, 2013 11:46:15 AM

thats all exciting but you forgot to mention what kind of processor you are using and what kind of cooler you have
no you wont see a different in 4.7 vs 4.5 its just bragging rights
Score
0
Related resources
February 26, 2013 11:50:10 AM

I was under the assumption 1.52 vCore is the max Intel recommend and the maxim with exterme cooling is 1.45. Is this correct? Perhaps, I will not see a noticeable difference as stated; therefore, 4.5 Ghz it is!
Score
0
February 26, 2013 12:09:34 PM

alvine said:
thats all exciting but you forgot to mention what kind of processor you are using and what kind of cooler you have
no you wont see a different in 4.7 vs 4.5 its just bragging rights



Alvine, I did not forget to....it is listed under the more infor...members confrig tab just to the left....(Intel 3570K and CM-Hyper 212 EVO)
Score
0
February 26, 2013 1:03:58 PM

1.35 v and less should give you full longevity for this cheap
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
February 26, 2013 1:11:04 PM

Quote:
I was under the assumption 1.52 vCore is the max Intel recommend and the maxim with exterme cooling is 1.45. Is this correct?

if you google the answer they seem to say this at overclockers.net, if you check the intel specification documents https://www-ssl.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/... and go to page 84 it seems to support that answer stating 1.52v as maximum range
Score
0
a b K Overclocking
February 26, 2013 1:20:30 PM

83c is kind of hot in I wouldn't push it more unless you can bring it down.
Score
0
February 26, 2013 1:26:19 PM

assasin32 said:
83c is kind of hot in I wouldn't push it more unless you can bring it down.


I can lower vCore to 1.340v to 1.330v and PLL from 1.700v to perhaps 1.550v and that would help with temp range. It only hit that temp once during Prime 95 run on two cores only. It is no where near that hot afterwards. It stays around 75c. I am just tweaking......tweaking.... to see if there is more to be had.
Score
0
a c 87 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
February 26, 2013 1:48:59 PM

I agree with Assasin. Temps are pretty high up there. I wouldn't up the voltage anymore.
Score
0
February 26, 2013 1:50:38 PM

You are correct as well! I have not set any offset up! I would want it to be safe for day to day use! I just want to get maxim output from this build and learn as much as I can since I will be building an Ultra...LAN box next and hope to hit 5.0 Ghz or more.....!
Score
0
February 26, 2013 1:58:52 PM

4745454b said:
I agree with Assasin. Temps are pretty high up there. I wouldn't up the voltage anymore.


I am not thinking of pushing voltage up anymore. I can lower it .01 or .02 or more and still stay stable. There is an .12 pts deferrence in voltage than what I input into BIOS versus what the system is pulling. I have been tweaking this system for 4 weeks. I just want to tweak...tweak...twaek...it until there is nothing left to be had! But done safely as was pointed out earlier.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
February 26, 2013 3:34:30 PM

1) going from 4.5 -> 5 GHz, if my math is correct only amounts to 11% and this only applies to CPU performace, real system performace gain is much less. To see a system performance gain you need at less 15% gain in CPU, and then the real gain is much less than 15%. 5 GHz vs 4.5 is more a ego issue - or how does that go, the epenis effect.

2) Yes Max voltage for IB/SB is 1.5V for Vcore (Ram max is 1.575). From what I've read 1.4 should be considered a Max. Asfar as Longevity, most do not concern themselfs with that as the diff between say 1.3 and 1.4 probably still outlasts the point of - GEE this New cpu is 50,000 times faster, time to UPGRADE - LOL.

3) Temp. Prime 95 will generate higher core temps than games. Max temp for IB/SB CPUs before throttling kicks in is around 95->98 C. While 83 C is OK, personnaly I do not like to go above 75C under Prime 95. Anyway check temp while in game mode and if under 75C, then fine.
Score
0
February 26, 2013 3:58:12 PM

RetiredChief said:
1) going from 4.5 -> 5 GHz, if my math is correct only amounts to 11% and this only applies to CPU performace, real system performace gain is much less. To see a system performance gain you need at less 15% gain in CPU, and then the real gain is much less than 15%. 5 GHz vs 4.5 is more a ego issue - or how does that go, the epenis effect.

2) Yes Max voltage for IB/SB is 1.5V for Vcore (Ram max is 1.575). From what I've read 1.4 should be considered a Max. Asfar as Longevity, most do not concern themselfs with that as the diff between say 1.3 and 1.4 probably still outlasts the point of - GEE this New cpu is 50,000 times faster, time to UPGRADE - LOL.

3) Temp. Prime 95 will generate higher core temps than games. Max temp for IB/SB CPUs before throttling kicks in is around 95->98 C. While 83 C is OK, personnaly I do not like to go above 75C under Prime 95. Anyway check temp while in game mode and if under 75C, then fine.




Thanks....Chief. If I am not going to see any performance gain from tweaking the CPU anymore then I am not going to push it any more. However, will tweaking the GPU or the Ram provided any further performance gain :bounce:  from this system? Both the GPU and Ram are stock settings. I have MSI Afterburn loaded and use it on max setting and the Vengeance RAM is system OC to 1600 Mhz. If not, I can live with this current OC.... :hello: >>> :lol:  !

I have another build in works that I am hoping to max out well over 5.5 Ghz plus. So I can live with this one being 4.5 Ghz.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
February 26, 2013 4:08:20 PM

For Ram, there is Very Little measureable gain, if any, outside of running benchmarks, for going above 1600. From what I've read here here is only a small gain going from 1333 (SB spec) to 1600 (IB Spec).

NO help on GPU, but basically my take would be check FPS of games you play between stock and OC of GPU - then decide if it is worth it. Or you can benchmark with Furmark.

Added, there is a select few applications that can take advantage of increased RAM bandwith (>1600), games not being one of them.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
February 28, 2013 2:58:28 PM

I say push your CPU up as high as you would like to go. I go up to 4.7Ghz. And yes there is a little noticeable difference between 4.5 and 4.7Ghz. Especially in benchmarks. Typically, every time you increase your clock speed .1Ghz, you gain an additional 3-4% performance. So .2Ghz is about an increase or 6-8%. Which is noticeable. Especially when doing anything on your PC that takes more than a minute or so to finish. My Vcore is set at 1.385 and my temps are around 82c in Prime95, which is totally safe. I've had my 3570k for a while and haven't had any problems and I'm not looking to keep my chip for more than 3 years at the very maximum. So under my circumstances I think it's completely fine to go over 1.35v and over 4.5Ghz. People say there is no difference between 4.5 and 4.7. But is there a difference between 4.3 and 4.5? or 4.0 and 4.2? Why did they go up the extra .2Ghz? Why should 4.5 be the stopping point? There is extra performance to be had, and I say go for it. Just keep your max temps under 90c when running IBT and you'll be alright.
Score
0

Best solution

a b à CPUs
a c 100 K Overclocking
February 28, 2013 5:29:56 PM

ericjohn004 said:
I say push your CPU up as high as you would like to go. I go up to 4.7Ghz. And yes there is a little noticeable difference between 4.5 and 4.7Ghz. Especially in benchmarks. Typically, every time you increase your clock speed .1Ghz, you gain an additional 3-4% performance. So .2Ghz is about an increase or 6-8%. Which is noticeable. Especially when doing anything on your PC that takes more than a minute or so to finish. My Vcore is set at 1.385 and my temps are around 82c in Prime95, which is totally safe. I've had my 3570k for a while and haven't had any problems and I'm not looking to keep my chip for more than 3 years at the very maximum. So under my circumstances I think it's completely fine to go over 1.35v and over 4.5Ghz. People say there is no difference between 4.5 and 4.7. But is there a difference between 4.3 and 4.5? or 4.0 and 4.2? Why did they go up the extra .2Ghz? Why should 4.5 be the stopping point? There is extra performance to be had, and I say go for it. Just keep your max temps under 90c when running IBT and you'll be alright.


The difference between 4.0 and 4.2 is a multiplier bump. The difference between 4.5 and 4.7 is spending hours tweaking and testing and dealing with BSODs.

Also, the power usage of a CPU goes up exponentially as you increase both voltage and speed.

So, why should 4.5 be the stopping point? Because that's as far as "easy mode overclocking" will get you. After that you are fighting for every ghz, and stressing the hardware to breaking point. It's fun, maybe, and gives you some bragging rights, I suppose, but it's not worth everyone's time nor is it worth the risk of damage for many people. 3 years on a powerful CPU is a very short lifespan and quite wasteful. If only I had funds to build new high end PCs every 3 years!

As for any performance benefits, stock on a 3570 is 3.6ghz. So going from that to 4.5ghz is a 25% speed boost. Each .1 after that is only 2.7% more speed... but, these CPUs are stupid fast already. The bottlenecks have long ago been moved to other devices. Unless you're encoding massive videos on CPU, 2.7% means little to nothing. Plus, encoding can now be done on the GPU at many times the speed (Quick Sync). I can't really think of many applications for gamers where pushing the hardware to breaking point will net any real world gains.
Share
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
February 28, 2013 7:41:39 PM

^ Well put
Score
0
March 1, 2013 6:15:51 PM

wolfram23 said:
The difference between 4.0 and 4.2 is a multiplier bump. The difference between 4.5 and 4.7 is spending hours tweaking and testing and dealing with BSODs.

Also, the power usage of a CPU goes up exponentially as you increase both voltage and speed.

So, why should 4.5 be the stopping point? Because that's as far as "easy mode overclocking" will get you. After that you are fighting for every ghz, and stressing the hardware to breaking point. It's fun, maybe, and gives you some bragging rights, I suppose, but it's not worth everyone's time nor is it worth the risk of damage for many people. 3 years on a powerful CPU is a very short lifespan and quite wasteful. If only I had funds to build new high end PCs every 3 years!

As for any performance benefits, stock on a 3570 is 3.6ghz. So going from that to 4.5ghz is a 25% speed boost. Each .1 after that is only 2.7% more speed... but, these CPUs are stupid fast already. The bottlenecks have long ago been moved to other devices. Unless you're encoding massive videos on CPU, 2.7% means little to nothing. Plus, encoding can now be done on the GPU at many times the speed (Quick Sync). I can't really think of many applications for gamers where pushing the hardware to breaking point will net any real world gains.


Thanks...I realized there was something else I could do to boost speed and ping rate. So I contacted my internet service provider and went from 768 Kbps upload/ 3 Mbps download to...5 Mbps upload/ 36 Mbps download rate. And as far as bragging rights or anything else that is not why I am here. I have never build a computer or less alone tweaked a system before. I have learned a great deal from everyone here by asking down right honesty question and getting good feedback/input. So let me take this moment to thank you as well as all the other people who have helped me!


Moreover, I am not just a gamer...I am tweaker(enthusiast).....and I enjoy learning how to tweak...tweak....tweak...tweak..till there is not anything else to be had (from a computer system such is the case here). I am not being wasteful nor destructive. I have learned something from you as well as all others. So one day I will be able to provide solid feedback/advice to other as well. Simply put, I am just an enthusiast like you!
Score
0
March 2, 2013 2:01:24 PM

kudos to wolfram23!
Score
0
March 2, 2013 6:20:00 PM

Best answer selected by knightfarley.
Score
0
!