I’ve long observed that the best Haswell-based dies will reach 4.6 GHz at less than 1.30 V, and long heard reports of CPUs that were pushed beyond 1.30 V degrading over time. That is, they slowly become less stable at full speed, which eventually requires an underclock. We don’t want that to happen to our readers.
My strategy is to exceed 4.6 GHz at no more than 1.30 V, though that doesn’t often work. Finding 4.7 GHz stable only at voltages that slightly exceeded 1.30 V, I dialed in 4.6 GHz and started looking for the lowest core voltage that would support it.
I found complete 4.6 GHz stability at 1.24 V. The large voltage difference between 4.6 and 4.7 GHz indicates to me that 4.6 GHz was also a great place to stop. In fact, 1.24 V is less than the peak operational voltage of this CPU at its stock settings.
Scroll up a couple of images and you’ll find that I also pushed G.Skill’s DDR3-1866 C8 to DDR3-2400 C10. That setting was far easier to find, partly because my experience with this memory shows that it reaches top stability at 1.60 V. The other half of this overclocking ease comes from the MSI motherboard’s integrated DRAM timing slope, which appeared to slow memory timings by almost-precisely the amount needed to support the overclock. I was only able to reduce the command rate (from 2T to 1T) and tRAS (from 37 to 28) without causing instability.
I overclocked the GPU with similar ease, but with less enthusiasm. After finding that the default fan slope would support all stable overclocks, I reverted to Catalyst Control Center’s built-in overclocking tool. Though these overclocks won’t impress anyone, any further increases in GPU clock caused visual errors even at low temperatures, and any further increase in memory clock caused black screens.
Though I didn’t gain much by overclocking, I certainly beat last quarter’s build. On the other hand, the previous machine was beset by a CPU that needed 1.28 V to reach only 4.20 GHz and, lacking the advantage of Intel’s newest Devil’s Canyon improvements, couldn’t accept more voltage without throttling.
- Can We Build An Even Higher-End $1600 PC?
- CPU, Graphics And Memory
- Motherboard, Case And Cooling
- Power Supply And Storage
- Hardware Installation
- Overclocking
- How We Tested
- Results: 3DMark And PCMark
- Results: SiSoftware Sandra
- Results: Battlefield 4
- Results: Grid 2
- Results: Arma 3
- Results: Far Cry 3
- Results: Audio And Video Encoding
- Results: Adobe Creative Cloud
- Results: Productivity
- Results: File Compression
- Power, Heat And Efficiency
- Is There Such Thing As A Perfect $1600 PC?





These quarterly builds usually only show miniscule improvements unless something disruptive happens to the market like a tick or tock. These articles could as well be bi-annual. Good though that the price point that you're at shifts from time to time.
290x -> SLI 770 = +$100
Same budget, theoretically a 10-15% performance boost, and new topic of discussion as part of the article.
These SBM builds have taken very few risks in the last few quarters...
290x -> SLI 770 = +$100
Same budget, theoretically a 10-15% performance boost, and new topic of discussion as part of the article.
These SBM builds have taken very few risks in the last few quarters...
CPU: Intel Core i5-4690K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor ($239.99 @ Newegg)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($34.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: ASRock Z97 EXTREME4 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($143.79 @ Newegg)
Memory: Team Vulcan 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($76.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Crucial MX100 256GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($115.98 @ Newegg)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($59.99 @ Newegg)
Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX 780 3GB DirectCU II Video Card (2-Way SLI) ($329.99 @ Newegg)
Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX 780 3GB DirectCU II Video Card (2-Way SLI) ($329.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: Corsair Professional 850W 80+ Gold Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($129.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $1461.70
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-09-25 18:14 EDT-0400
What about this? Might be cheating, given the price drops from the GTX 900 series release. Also add $10 from a promo on the PSU.
With that said, I do find these SBM articles most interesting of all.
For the record, I'm not building it for myself, but somebody who wants a flashy case. I would pick the muted design of a fractal personally, but potato potah-toe
CPU: Intel Core i5-4690K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor ($239.99 @ Newegg)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($34.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: ASRock Z97 EXTREME4 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($143.79 @ Newegg)
Memory: Team Vulcan 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($76.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Crucial MX100 256GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($115.98 @ Newegg)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($59.99 @ Newegg)
Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX 780 3GB DirectCU II Video Card (2-Way SLI) ($329.99 @ Newegg)
Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX 780 3GB DirectCU II Video Card (2-Way SLI) ($329.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: Corsair Professional 850W 80+ Gold Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($129.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $1461.70
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-09-25 18:14 EDT-0400
What about this? Might be cheating, given the price drops from the GTX 900 series release. Also add $10 from a promo on the PSU.
I went with the big cooler this time so I wouldn't have to hear about it if the CPU sucked, like it did last time. I could have met my goals on the cooler you chose, since the CPU I got this time was a great sample.
Hopefully I win this one. I need a new folding machine.
On a personal note :
I wouldn't buy an R9 290x if it was $200 BNIB.
I've seen first hand the problems that are seemingly inherent with that item.
Between the defect ratio and the variable performance , I would rather own a GTX 780, or heck even a pair of R9-280's for the same price than that lemon of a GpU.
Well, logically, those cards weren't available in large enough numbers to use on these machines.