Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Man Vs. Machine: Four Automatic Overclocking Techs, Compared
By ,
1. Is Automatic Overclocking Any Easier Or Better?

It’s been a while since we’ve written a comprehensive overclocking guide, yet most of the methods from our previous guide still apply. The biggest difference is that Intel’s FSB was replaced several years back by a base clock (similar to AMD’s reference clock) in the transition from LGA 775 to LGA 1366. The second-biggest difference is that Intel all but locked down that base clock on its LGA 1155-based platforms. Fortunately, buyers who can afford the extra premium tied to Intel’s K-series processors get full multiplier access, which eliminates much of the need for sky-high BCLK settings.

If you're hitting this story as a neophyte and find that previous paragraph gibberish, check out our previous overclocking guide (including the AMD parts). Hopefully that will get you to the point where overclocking Intel's Sandy Bridge-based processors make a little more sense.

Now, with that said, we realize that not all of our readers have the time, risk adversity, or overclocking chops to follow the entire process of manually tweaking multipliers, base clocks, and voltages. Thus, while each of our system builds includes a detailed description of the overclocking settings we choose, companies like ASRock, Asus, Gigabyte, and MSI would like to make the process even easier.

Techniques like built-in BIOS automatic overclocking profiles, active intelligent overclocking, profile-based overclocking from a desktop interface, and even push-button overclocking make free performance available to beginners with no experience at all!

But Is Automatic Overclocking Safer?

Our overclocking articles often mention a process called “electromigration,” where material is physically transferred from one part of a circuit to another. While the full description of this phenomenon is complex, it’s easy to understand that an insulator contaminated with conductive particles no longer insulates. Transistor gates function as either insulators or conductors depending on charge state and are particularly prone to this type of damage. And yet, many technology enthusiasts place the blame for a fried processor or GPU solely on heat, ignoring the fact that voltage is a measure of force.

Force causes electromigration, and colder silicon more easily resists that force by being less pliable. Colder temperatures also increase the insulation capabilities of transistor gates in the “off” phase, reducing the number of electrons that are forced through the closed gate. The  problem with blaming heat alone on a failure is that moderate increases in electromigration resistance usually require drastic temperature reductions. When it comes to protecting hundreds of dollars in equipment, we always make our recommendations to you erring on the side of caution.

We've learned through trial, error, and dead processors that voltage levels beyond 1.45 V at above-ambient temperatures can kill an Intel CPU etched at 32 nm (Sandy Bridge-based parts included) very quickly. Those same processors die a fairly slow death at voltage levels between 1.40 V and 1.45 V (somewhere between weeks and months on our test benches). And we're expecting more than a year of reliable service from the parts we've dutifully kept below 1.40 V. Not all motherboards are perfect however. Voltage instability on a particularly cheap motherboard fried one of our processors when it was set to only1.38 V. Subsequently, you've seen us use 1.35 V for the overclocking tests in older motherboard round-ups, embracing 1.38 V to 1.40 V in more recent pieces covering higher-end platforms.

...Or Any Better?

Rather than sit here and try to beat the “Automatic” and/or “Easy” overclocking methods engineered by some of today's most popular motherboard manufacturers, we’re going to let them try to beat us. We’re even going to make it easy for them by handicapping ourselves with a 1.35 V voltage ceiling (the same one we used in the overclocking tests of our most recent motherboard round-up).  We'll only start raising eyebrows if they exceed that 1.4 V limit that we simply cannot recommend our readers push past if they have any expectation of long-term durability. We’ll go on to benchmark the “best they can do” against the “safest we can do” before judging the ease, safety, and effectiveness of their methods.

2. ASRock Optimized CPU OC

Five overclocking profiles in the Z68 Extreme7 Gen3's firmware aid uninitiated K-series CPU overclockers by allowing them to select a single menu option. Yet, because these are generic profiles, they fail to account for the variability in each individual CPU’s headroom. Some chips can do things that other simply cannot. For example, we were not able to use the “Turbo 4.8 GHz” setting; enabling it made our system unbootable.

Boot recovery technology allows the system to revert to default clocks after a failed start-up, but it isn’t always completely automatic. We had to turn the system on and off manually a few times before the motherboard responded, allowing us to then choose the stable “Turbo 4.6 GHz” option.

One of several motherboards to use 99.8 MHz in place of Intel’s 100 MHz reference base clock, the Z68 Extreme7 Gen3 simply increases the CPU multiplier to 46x. Power-saving features are still enabled, allowing the processor to also clock down to 1.6 GHz at reduced voltage when idle. The maximum voltage we saw under various loads was 1.36 V.

This is an almost-perfect overclock for our CPU, though differences between processors means that it might not be perfect for yours.

Z68 Extreme7 Gen3 firmware 1.3 does not activate our memory’s XMP profile automatically. Although you can achieve this from a separate menu, we wanted to see how well the board’s automatic overclocking worked, and we would have expected that to include an optimal memory data rate.

3. Manual Overclocking And AXTU

As shown in our Z68 Extreme7 Gen3 firmware coverage, our highest 1.35 V overclock required this platform's 1.34 V CPU core setting, “Level-1” Load-Line Calibration, a 46x CPU multiplier, and a base clock of 100.9 MHz.

Unfortunately, our memory’s XMP-2200 profile was useless at 100.9 MHz BCLK, due to the board’s 2136 MHz maximum stable memory frequency.

Nicknamed AXTU, ASRock’s Extreme Tuning Utility allows those very same adjustments within Windows. Multiplier, core voltage, and base clock frequencies can be set without rebooting.

Though many users prefer to overclock without rebooting, our maximum overclock using AXTU was around 20 MHz lower compared to adjustments made directly from the Z68 Extreme7 Gen3’s firmware interface. When it comes to locking in settings for good, we still prefer using the BIOS or UEFI whenever possible.

4. Asus OC Tuner

The biggest problem with pre-defined overclocking profiles is that they can’t adjust for normal variations in a CPU's scalability. One Core i5-2500K might be able to hit 4.3 GHz without a problem, while another maxes out at 4.5 GHz. Asus addresses that issue with an overclocking engine that alternates between stability tests and incremental clock increases to more precisely isolate the overclocking limit of your chip. The best part of Asus’ method is its single-step initialization.

Clicking “OK” from the OC Tuner menu initiates the process, which is followed by a reboot, around a minute of black screen, and a new set of voltage and clock values.

We were a little disappointed to see the top-overclocking P8Z68 Deluxe yield only 4.43 GHz using its automated method. But our biggest concern was that it ramped our CPU core up to 1.448 V under certain load conditions. Several of our hardcore overclocking friends have given us a 1.45 V peak instantaneous voltage limit for Intel Sandy Bridge-based processors, and our own tests have shown that exceeding 1.40 V for extended periods dramatically decreases the processor’s life.

OC Tuner ignores our memory’s XMP capability, but does increase its multiplier to the DDR3-1866 setting. Combining that with the processor’s higher 103 MHz BCLK yields an actual data rate of DDR3-1923.

5. Manual Overclocking And TurboV EVO

We used the overclock settings from our P8Z68 Deluxe firmware description to set Intel’s Core i7-2600K to 4.73 GHz at 1.35 V. Actual settings include a 1.335 V CPU core with “Extreme” Load-Line Calibration at a 47x multiplier and 100.5 MHz BCLK.

Asus’ class-leading memory overclocking capability allowed us to simultaneously use our memory’s XMP-2200 values to reach DDR3-2145.

Asus TurboV EVO requires one reboot to enable live ratio changes from Windows. A few of the firmware’s clock and voltage settings are repeated here, though the software’s maximum overclock came up around 100 MHz short of what we were able to demonstrate using the firmware to dial in our desired settings.

Changes to the CPU core voltage showed up in both CPU-Z and Asus Probe II, but were not reflected in the TurboV EVO menu. This might be because we set the board's BIOS to fixed (rather than offset) mode. We believe the relatively large delta in overclocking capability between software and firmware settings is most likely due to differences in “Load-Line Calibration” between automatic (software) and manual (firmware) adjustment methods.

6. Gigabyte Smart QuickBoost

Many new overclockers are completely terrified by BIOS menus, afraid that one mistaken click will turn their high-end machine into an expensive doorstop. Gigabyte addresses this concern by avoiding its BIOS altogether, focusing automatic overclocking functionality into a Windows-based application.

Don’t be fooled by the errant CPU-Z voltage reading. Gigabyte’s “Twin Turbo” setting actually boosts the CPU core to 1.38-1.39 V. A reboot is required to activate Smart QuickBoost.

A frequency of 4.2 GHz is just the beginning of the “Twin Turbo” overclock, as this is its four-core boost setting. A two-core load jumps to 4.3 GHz, while single-threaded applications go up to 4.4 GHz.

Smart QuickBoost wasn’t smart enough to use our memory’s XMP-2200 values, choosing its highest SPD value instead.

7. Manual Overclocking And EasyTune6

We carried forward the 4.68 GHz overclock shown in the BIOS screenshots of Gigabyte’s Z68XP-UD5, including the 1.35 V core and Level 6 Load-Line setting that was required to reach an actual 1.35 V under load. Note that this particular motherboard does not facilitate proper voltage readings in CPU-Z.

Solid memory overclocking capability let us use XMP-2200 values in spite of the CPU’s increased 101.6 MHz BCLK, resulting in a DDR3-2168 data rate at CAS 9.

EasyTune6 jumps over several settings compared to Gigabyte's BIOS, so we couldn’t select 101.6 MHz, and 101.8 MHz caused the system to crash.

Similarly, the 45x CPU multiplier wasn’t selectable, and the system wasn’t stable with EasyTune6 set to 46x. The combination of missing settings and inferior stability caused EasyTune6 to fall around 200 MHz short of our BIOS-based overclock, again compelling us to dial in our favorite settings that way.

CPU Vcore also jumped from 1.345 V to 1.355 V. We selected 1.345 V because we were comparing a 1.350 V BIOS-based overclock, which could explain our CPU’s inability to reach 46x using Gigabyte's software.

8. MSI OC Genie

We've heard one-touch overclocking and Easy Button used to refer to MSI’s OC Genie instant overclocking method. Rather than rely on a BIOS setting or software application, the Z68-GD80 provides a button that engages instant overclock mode.

The result is a 4.20 GHz clock rate, regardless of the number of active CPU cores, making this the most conservative approach tested thus far. Its 1.34 V CPU core setting is also conservative, additionally making this one of the safest automatic overclocks.

OC Genie is able to use our memory’s XMP values, however, jumping straight to the board’s DDR3-2133 ratio. A 99.8 MHz base clock produces an actual data rate of 2129 MT/s.

9. Manual Overclocking And Control Center

We used the overclock settings from our MSI firmware screenshots to set the Z68A-GD80 to 4.67 GHz at 1.35 V. The actual firmware settings to reach this full-load target voltage were “Low VDroop” and 1.355 V CPU core.

A moderate 2150 MT/s maximum stable DRAM data rate for this motherboard prevented us from using our memory’s XMP profile at the increased 101.6 MHz BCLK. We instead left the memory at Auto, which uses its highest SPD settings.

MSI Control Center provides Windows access to many of the motherboard’s firmware settings, including CPU multiplier, core voltage, and base clock. Some of its settings don’t properly align with the firmware values, however. For instance, the 1.3600 V setting corresponds to the firmware’s 1.355 V setting and an actual output of 1.344-1.352 V.

Even at the same voltage, we weren't able to reach the same overclock from Control Center. A peak of 4.62 GHz was the best we could do, though most novices would probably consider that pretty darned good anyway.

Memory timings can also be adjusted without a reboot.

10. Test Settings And Benchmarks
Test System Configuration
CPUIntel Core i7-2600K: 3.40 GHz, 8 MB Cache, LGA 1155
CPU CoolerThermalright MUX-120 w/Zalman ZM-STG1 Paste
RAMG.Skill F3-17600CL9Q-16GBXLD (16 GB)
DDR3-2200 at DDR3-1600 CAS 9, 1.60 V
GraphicsNvidia GeForce GTX 580 1.5 GB
772 MHz GPU, GDDR5-4008
ASRock MotherboardZ68 Extreme7 Gen3, BIOS 1.3 (9/28/2011)
Asus MotherboardP8Z68 Deluxe, BIOS 0706 (08/05/2011)
Gigabyte MotherboardZ68XP-UD5, BIOS F4e (08/25/2011)
MSI MotherboardZ68A-GD80, BIOS V17.2 (07/18/2011)
Hard DriveSamsung 470 Series MZ5PA256HMDR, 256 GB SSD 
SoundIntegrated HD Audio
NetworkIntegrated Gigabit Networking
PowerSeasonic X760 SS-760KM
ATX12V v2.3, EPS12V, 80 PLUS Gold
Software
OSMicrosoft Windows 7 Ultimate x64
GraphicsNvidia GeForce 270.61 WHQL
ChipsetIntel INF 9.2.0.1030


Seasonic’s X760 provides the consistent efficiency required to assess motherboard power differences.

G.Skill’s RipJaws X DDR3-2200 16 GB kit provides the super-high XMP value we needed to evaluate each motherboard’s overclocking capabilities. We used two of the four modules for today’s test.

Nvidia’s GeForce GTX 580 graphics card minimizes GPU bottlenecks, allowing us to further evaluate the performance benefit of CPU and memory overclocks in games.

Benchmark Configuration
3D Games
CrysisPatch 1.2.1, DirectX 10, 64-bit executable, benchmark tool
Test Set 1: High Quality, No AA
Test Set 2: Very High Quality, 8x AA
Metro 2033Full Game, Built-In Benchmark, "Frontline" Scene
Test Set 1: DX11, High, AAA, 4x AF, No PhysX, No DoF
Test Set 2: DX11, Very High, 4x AA, 16x AF, No PhysX, DoF On
Audio/Video Encoding
iTunesVersion 9.0.3.15 x64: Audio CD (Terminator II SE), 53 minutes, default AAC format 
Lame MP3Version 3.98.3: Audio CD "Terminator II SE", 53 min, convert WAV to MP3 audio format, Command: -b 160 --nores (160 Kb/s)
MediaEspresso 6.5Version 6.5.1210_33281: 1080i HDTV (449 MB) to iPad H.264, 1024x768
MediaConverter 7Version7.1.0.68: 1080i HDTV (449 MB) to iPad, SmartFit profile
File Compression
WinZipVersion 14.0 Pro: THG-Workload (464 MB) to ZIP, command line switches "-a -ez -p -r"
WinRARVersion 4.0 Beta 4: THG-Workload (464 MB) to RAR, command line switches "winrar a -r -m3"
7-ZipVersion 9.2: THG-Workload (464 MB) to .7z, command line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=5"


A scaled-back benchmark set keeps our charts and pages at manageable length with several additional test configurations.

11. Benchmark Results: Crysis

Crysis is a handy real-world benchmark because it shows performance differences for nearly every hardware change. These are most noticeable at lower settings, such as 1280x720 with anti-aliasing disabled.

ASRock’s higher-frequency “Turbo 4.6” mode puts it ahead of Asus in “Auto” mode, while Gigabyte’s slightly higher DRAM data rate edges out Asus with manual overclocking. The P8Z68 Deluxe looks good in the balance.

Performance differences between motherboards are minimized at increased GPU resolutions. Even the mighty GeForce GTX 580 bottlenecks Crysis!

CPU clock takes precedence at our higher-quality Crysis settings, yet even that variable goes away when resolutions are pushed to 1920x1080 or higher.

12. Benchmark Results: Metro 2033

Metro 2033 is still overtaking Crysis as the demanding game to beat, even though it’s a little over a year old. The main reason it hasn’t completely replaced Crysis as a benchmark is that it’s not nearly as CPU-bottlenecked…yet. Even our most moderate test settings and a low 1280x720 resolution puts our mighty GeForce GTX 580 against the wall, with minimal gains attributable to CPU overclocking.

Small differences due to CPU frequency nearly vanish at 2560x1600. Further detail increases simply diminish the value of this game as a differentiator of CPU performance.

13. Benchmark Results: Audio And Video Encoding

Nearly any overclock looks great in Apple iTunes, but ASRock’s 4.6 GHz stands at the top of automatic methods. While manual overclocking always leads, the differences between boards are too small to show up in a 48-second benchmark.

When we stretch our legs for a benchmark that lasts more than a minute, Asus’ top manual-overclocking stability takes the lead. ASRock still tops the automatically-overclocked configurations.

In addition to pushing higher core clock rates, MSI's OC Genie overclocks the Core i7-2600K’s integrated GPU, boosting its Quick Sync encode performance for MediaEspresso supremacy.

We’ve noticed in past reviews that MediaConverter 7 gets less benefit from Intel's Quick Sync technology compared to MediaEspresso, and MSI’s lead shrinks accordingly.

14. Benchmark Results: File Compression

Asus' and ASRock's automatic overclocks are matched in 7-Zip performance, even though ASRock has a higher CPU frequency. Asus’ higher memory data rate could help explain this parity. Manual overclocking dominates with both Asus and Gigabyte.

MSI has the highest auto-overclock memory frequency, and that appears to pay off in WinRAR. Asus’ combination of good memory and excellent CPU frequencies allow it to lead among manual overclocks.

WinZip appears favorable only to CPU frequency, with ASRock’s automatic and Asus’ manual overclocks leading competitors.

15. Power And Heat

We did not re-adjust any power settings after selecting the auto-overclocking modes of these four major brands, but instead let the “chips fall where they may." After all, the idea behind auto-overclocking is that it’s supposed to take away the work of manual firmware adjustment.

Here’s where we see the big difference between MSI and everyone else. The other three boards keep Intel’s power savings features enabled and simply manipulate the multiplier and voltage used by Turbo Boost technology, while MSI lock in the overclock. Gigabyte takes a big lead in idle power savings.

The one thing MSI seems to do better than everyone else is conserve power at its voltage regulator. Even with the voltage set manually at its highest-supported CPU frequency, the Z68A-GD80 shaves watts compared to the best of its competitors.

This editor uses a thermal probe to gauge PWM temperature at the hottest spot accessible, and heat sink design can affect the accuracy of that measurement. Gigabyte’s Z68XP-UD5 advantage is large enough that an error of a few degrees would still keep it at the top, followed by MSI’s Z68A-GD80.

16. Efficiency

ASRock has the highest automatic overclock, but Asus manages to match its gaming performance with a higher memory multiplier.

Asus has the highest manual overclock at 47 x 100.5 MHz. However, because we had to step down to a 46x multiplier on Gigabyte’s board, we were able to push the base clock up to a higher 101.6 MHz base clock.

The performance advantage of super-fast memory is typically tiny but chartable, and we should also note that anyone seeking those tiny differences could chose to overclock Asus at a higher BCLK using the lower 46x multiplier, too.

Asus’ top manual overclock gives it a chartable lead in applications, while ASRock’s top auto-overclock is somehow matched by MSI. While part of that is most likely due to the impact of MSI’s HD Graphics 3000 overclock affecting Quick Sync-enhanced applications, we can’t help but wonder what's happening with that higher idle power state.

Combined performance places Asus’ and ASRock’s automatic overclocks on par with each other, while also showing a match between Asus’ and Gigabyte’s manually-overclocked performance. Asus looks like the true leader by doing well on both fronts, but the real reason to produce a combined score is for efficiency calculation.

No device is 100% efficient, but if we use the most efficient configuration as a 100% baseline, we can see how the highest-efficiency overclock still falls 16% behind it. Asus’ automatic overclock is the least efficient as a consequence of its gratuitously-increased voltage.

17. Which Automatic Overclocking Technology Should You Use?

Marketing for the latest automatic overclocking technologies and techniques reads like the face of a new cold medicine: “Safe, Easy, and Effective.” But did today’s test prove these claims? Like any drug, we suggest you read the proverbial back of the box before you start chugging the Kool-Aid.

ASRock Z68 Extreme7 Gen3

ASRock had the best automatic overclock with our processors, achieving 4.6 GHz as if it was designed to push our sample, which came from Intel, as far as it'd go. That's actually a distinct possibility, depending on where ASRock got its own test samples. The problem with pre-defined overclocking profiles, though, is that they’re almost never optimized for any randomly-selected CPU because each CPU overclocks differently. While we’re pleased with how ASRock treats our specific processor, we can’t make any promises about how well these profiles will work with yours.

We also really like the fact that ASRock's Z68 Extreme7 Gen3 uses a 1.36 V maximum CPU core voltage, giving this Intel Core i7-2600K what our experience says is a safe, easy, and effective performance boost. That's everything we were looking for from this exercise.

Asus P8Z68 Deluxe

Asus' OC Tuner appears generations ahead of ASRock’s pre-defined profiles in that alternating frequency increases and stress tests determine what the company's algorithms consider to be the best overclock for nearly any randomly-selected CPU. Asus even takes the guesswork out of selecting an overclock by giving users a single setting to activate its overclocking engine.

Unfortunately, the 4.43 GHz overclock on which it settles is nearly 200 MHz below what we achieved on our own, causing us to question its effectiveness. And at 1.45 V for the CPU core, it’s even at least 50 mV beyond what we’d consider safe. Simplicity doesn’t excuse the risk to your processor and a lower effective clock rate in this case.

The P8Z68 Deluxe is the absolute best manual-overclocking motherboard, a fact that really compels us to set aside Asus’ automated overclocking technology altogether and go for what we know we can hit with this platform.

Gigabyte Z68XP-UD5

Gigabyte actually requires its users to load Windows before Smart QuickBoost can be used. This might not be a bad idea, since the Windows application should help quell the fears of users who are unwilling to take on a BIOS challenge. Tiered multiplier ratios based on the number of CPU cores in use is probably the smartest part of Gigabyte’s application, as this method works with Intel’s power-saving technology to make the Z68XP-UD5 the most efficient overclocker we’ve tested, in spite of its slightly-aggressive 1.39 V peak core voltage.

MSI Z68A-GD80

MSI OC Genie did some things splendidly and others halfheartedly. For example, its Easy Button activation requires neither BIOS tinkering nor a Windows application. Also topping our list of favorites is its ability to actually read and use our memory’s DDR3-2200 profile without manual intervention. The Z68A-GD80 further pleased us by using a modest integrated GPU overclock to boost the capability of Intel's Quick Sync video technology. And yet, the CPU overclock was a little weak at 4.2 GHz.

MSI’s low CPU overclock came at a fairly conservative 1.34 V CPU core, potentially making this the safest automatic-overclock in our round-up. However, that nice, low voltage wasn’t enough to overcome horrific power consumption at CPU idle. Power-savings features can be re-enabled with a bit of tinkering in the BIOS, but that negates the whole point of this experiment, along with MSI's position as the champion of easy overclocking.

As we expected, none of today’s motherboards are able to match our own overclocking efforts, though ASRock comes eerily close. We’d have to test a large number of randomly-chosen CPU samples before we could turn that observation into a recommendation based on predefined profiles. And even though we didn’t like MSI’s low automatic CPU overclock and high idle wattage (at default settings), its improved GPU and DRAM performance add to exceptional ease of use, making OC Genie our recommendation to the folks who'd like to overclock their machines but just haven't worked up the nerve (or perhaps don't have the time).