Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Need Help Overclocking My 1090T

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 30, 2011 5:54:29 AM

My 1090T is currently at 4.08Ghz@1.490625V:

CPU Ratio: 17, CPU Bus Frequency 240
DRAM Frequency 1600Mhz
CPU/NB Frequency 2880Mhz@1.55V[Auto]

All the voltage, except CPU is left at [Auto].

At the same settings but with the CPU voltage at 1.490625V prime95 blend ran for 2 hours 29 minutes before I got a bluescreen and then the system rebooted. Then I increased the CPU voltage to the said 1.490625V and haven't run prime95 blend since.

I ran Cinebench 11.529 with that overclock and got a measly 7.27 points in the CPU Test. But still better than what I got from a previous overclock to 4.2Ghz where I only got 6.93 points, with 3Ghz NB but 1333Mhz DRAM.

Please help me to get a stable overclock, I'm trying for almost a year now.


Thanks a lot.


My PC:

CPU
1090T @4.1GHz
Motherboard
ASUS M4A89TD Pro/USB3
Memory
4 x 2 GB DDR3 1600Mhz G.Skill
Graphics Card
XFX 5970 Black Edition
Hard Drive
1x X25-M 80GB 2X SpinPoint F3 1TB
Power Supply
Corsair HX 850W
Case
HAF 932
CPU cooling
Noctua NH-D14
GPU cooling
Stock
OS
Windows 7 64 Bit Professional & Win XP 32 Bit Pro
Monitor
Hanns-G HZ281HPB 1920x1200 27.5"

More about : overclocking 1090t

May 30, 2011 5:59:54 AM

Sorry, I just saw, that I'm in thew wrong forum and that there's a specific overclock forum.
May 30, 2011 6:04:36 AM

Well, maybe your CPU just simply can't run at higher frequency? Leave it as it is or sell this one and buy another. Perhaps other chip can oc better but still this is nice overclock.
And one more thing, never keep auto voltage settings because mobo can do strange things with it.
What temps do you got?
Related resources
May 30, 2011 7:30:41 AM

@szymek

The high temperature in CoreTemp64 during the p95 blend test was 55°C. Do you think the overclock is as stable as it can get after lasting 2 hours and 29 minutes in prime95 blend?

I never had much luck setting a voltage. Can you recommend a voltage?
a b à CPUs
May 30, 2011 7:48:07 AM

This may come as a shock, but not every X4, or, especially X6, makes it to 4 Ghz, much less above that....

Those that do are still outperformed by SandyBridge rigs running at stock clock speeds 700 Mhz 'slower'.
May 30, 2011 8:24:11 AM

mdd1963, no, sandybridge cpus don't outperform pII running at 4ghz. PII is slightly faster plus 890fx is a better chipset for CFX and Raid. Honestly, in real life PII@4GHz seems much faster in win7 than i7-2600k stock.
^The any key, I can only tell you what voltage I had with my 1090t@4GHz. It was 1.45V and it was stable with highest temp 58degrees. What I would do if I were in your shoes is set your cpu fans at highest settings, give your cpu 1.55V and check if it is stable at 4.2GHz. Just be sure to keep your temps below 62degrees.
May 30, 2011 8:31:36 AM

mdd1963 said:
This may come as a shock, but not every X4, or, especially X6, makes it to 4 Ghz, much less above that....

Those that do are still outperformed by SandyBridge rigs running at stock clock speeds 700 Mhz 'slower'.


No shock at all, I already know I should have bought an i7 instead of this half-assed 1090T. I thought long about which cpu to get but in the end I still made the wrong decision and went with the 1090T instead of an i7 930. Frustrating, especially since the setup didn't come cheap.

The PII x6 seems to be an ok option to upgrade your cpu on an AM2+ board but it seems unnecessary to build a whole new system around it, which I did. :fou: 
May 30, 2011 9:14:31 AM

Over a year ago I also bought 1090t, it was as expensive as i7 875k at that time. I just saw that both these cpus oced to 4.1GHz are simply the same and I went with AMD because I read somewhere that Bulldozers will support AM3 socket which appeared to be false. Nevertheless, it's really good cpu, I'm telling you, i7-2600k stock really really seems slower in windows.
May 30, 2011 9:24:09 AM

szymek said:
Over a year ago I also bought 1090t, it was as expensive as i7 875k at that time. I just saw that both these cpus oced to 4.1GHz are simply the same and I went with AMD because I read somewhere that Bulldozers will support AM3 socket which appeared to be false. Nevertheless, it's really good cpu, I'm telling you, i7-2600k stock really really seems slower in windows.


Yes, this was another big reason why I went with the PII x6 and AM3. I thought the next generation cpus would also work on AM3 boards, but now we know that's wrong and the 1100T is the last cpu for AM3.
a c 110 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
May 30, 2011 11:43:47 AM

TheAnyKey said:
Yes, this was another big reason why I went with the PII x6 and AM3. I thought the next generation cpus would also work on AM3 boards, but now we know that's wrong and the 1100T is the last cpu for AM3.


You want some cheese with that whine? :lol: 

Oh. and, "Pssst ..." Your motherboard will support Bulldozer with BIOS Version 3107

Quote:
....I ran Cinebench 11.529 with that overclock and got a measly 7.27 points


From Legit Reviews:



My advice: Listen to szymek because he is clearly the only guy who knows what he is talking about in this thread - especially concerning *Auto* voltage settings.

Further specific advice -like dropping your NB multiplier and volts- may be obtained at Tom's AMD Forum.
a b à CPUs
May 30, 2011 11:50:44 AM

szymek said:
Over a year ago I also bought 1090t, it was as expensive as i7 875k at that time. I just saw that both these cpus oced to 4.1GHz are simply the same and I went with AMD because I read somewhere that Bulldozers will support AM3 socket which appeared to be false. Nevertheless, it's really good cpu, I'm telling you, i7-2600k stock really really seems slower in windows.

why is it slower in windows?
May 30, 2011 12:55:39 PM

Wisecracker said:
You want some cheese with that whine? :lol: 

Oh. and, "Pssst ..." Your motherboard will support Bulldozer with BIOS Version 3107

Quote:
....I ran Cinebench 11.529 with that overclock and got a measly 7.27 points


From Legit Reviews:
http://www.legitreviews.com/images/reviews/1501/cinebench.gif


My advice: Listen to szymek because he is clearly the only guy who knows what he is talking about in this thread - especially concerning *Auto* voltage settings.

Further specific advice -like dropping your NB multiplier and volts- may be obtained at Tom's AMD Forum.


Sounds wonderful, I hope ASUS sticks to it and releases the finished AM3+ BIOS for the current AM3 Boards and doesn't drop the plans like Asrock. I read Asrock also planned on releasing an AM3+ enabling BIOS for their line of AM3 boards but eventually decided not to, here: http://fiddlingwithelectronics.blogspot.com/2011/05/new...

Do you think this will work reasonably well or might the old 890 chipset motherboards slow the Bulldozer CPUs down heavily?
a c 110 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
May 31, 2011 12:26:55 PM

TheAnyKey said:
....

Do you think this will work reasonably well or might the old 890 chipset motherboards slow the Bulldozer CPUs down heavily?


I suspect it will perform better than 'reasonably well' and will over-clock like a monster.

BUT ... this will come at a loss of the new *Turbo2* function and the ability to 'power-gate' modules to a low-power state. If you are over-clocking, I suspect you would not be interested in Turbo or running in a low-power state, anyway.

[:jaydeejohn:5]
a b à CPUs
May 31, 2011 11:40:30 PM

szymek said:
mdd1963, no, sandybridge cpus don't outperform pII running at 4ghz. .



http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2...

I'm sure there might be some heavy multitasking senarios (gaming during/with folding, Seti, Prime 95 and decoding running?) where the Phenom might be faster...

But in strictly gaming (I chose THG's 'Left For Dead' benchmarking to note scaling and relative performance), note the X4 gains about 2.3 frames/sec per 100 Mhz in scaling from 3.5 GHz to 3.7 GHz; extrapolating to 4 GHz, the X4 at 4 Ghz will still be defeated by pretty much everything SB, but, to it's credit, the X4@4 Ghz at least now ties an older i7-960 running at....3.06 GHz. This is of course *before* one even thinks of overclocking the i7-960 or i5/2500k, which appear to scale with more than twice the improved frames per sec per 100 Mhz delivered, noting a 6+ fps increase per 100 Mhz, roughly 13 fps per 200 Mhz, etc...

Both will still be outframed by the 2300 (2.8 GHz) and the 2400 (3.1 GHz) at stock clocks...

My earlier comment about the X4 being defeated by i5 Sandys running 700-800 Mhz less clockspeed might have even been a bit too conservative. :) 
a c 110 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
June 1, 2011 12:15:29 AM

mdd1963 said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2...

I'm sure there might be some heavy multitasking senarios (gaming during/with folding, Seti, Prime 95 and decoding running?) where the Phenom might be faster...

But in strictly gaming (I chose THG's 'Left For Dead' benchmarking to note scaling and relative performance), note the X4 gains about 2.3 frames/sec per 100 Mhz in scaling from 3.5 GHz to 3.7 GHz; extrapolating to 4 GHz, the X4 at 4 Ghz will still be defeated by pretty much everything SB, but, to it's credit, the X4@4 Ghz at least now ties an older i7-960 running at....3.06 GHz. This is of course *before* one even thinks of overclocking the i7-960 or i5/2500k, which appear to scale with more than twice the improved frames per sec per 100 Mhz delivered, noting a 6+ fps increase per 100 Mhz, roughly 13 fps per 200 Mhz, etc...

Both will still be outframed by the 2300 (2.8 GHz) and the 2400 (3.1 GHz) at stock clocks...

My earlier comment about the X4 being defeated by i5 Sandys running 700-800 Mhz less clockspeed might have even been a bit too conservative. :) 


Ummmm boy, that sure is some fancy cherry-pickin' and cipherin' yah got there.

You have quite a future ahead of you as a propagandist and troll.
a b à CPUs
June 1, 2011 1:00:17 AM

Merely pointing out the performance disparity in games...; in the past, I owned a K6/233, a K6-2/350, K6-3/450, Slot A Athlon 650, XP2000+, and A64/3500+, so I'd hardly say I am biased against AMD....

When/if the results are/were reversed, or if they were roughly equal, I'd post them as well.....

But until then.....those that contemplate buying an X4/X6 thinking it is a better choice than SB *for gaming* should look at hard results/comparisons in framerates...

IF the choice were largely X4 BE vs I7-980x w/ X58, I'd opt for the X4 too....

Please list a single gaming benchmark where the X4 keeps up with a Sandybridge....
a c 110 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
June 1, 2011 1:12:32 AM

Please tell me how you distinguish between 200 FPS and 250 FPS.

Thanks.
a b à CPUs
June 1, 2011 1:25:12 AM

I distinguish the above example as one system having a 25% advantage in average framerates over another....

Are we discussing if the X4/X6 system is 'playable' in games ( of course it is), or, wether or not it is measurably slower than the SB or most older i7-920/950 rigs?
a c 110 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
June 1, 2011 1:28:50 AM

mdd1963 said:
I distinguish the above example as one system having a 25% advantage in average framerates over another....

Are we discussing if the X4/X6 system is 'playable' in games ( of course it is), or, wether or not it is measurably slower than the SB or most older i7-920/950 rigs?


What we are discussing is the OP and his 1090T at 4GHz, his HD 5970, and his Asus M4A89TD Pro/USB3.
!