|
Ya the H100 is a badass little kit for the money. I also have a brand new H80 I still need to sell (got the 500R free so decided to get the H100 to match). Also is it just because it is not the "Overclocker" board or something because when I do Manual Vcore in my P9X79D, I can set it to something like 1.325 and under full load, it will hit almost .15V more under full load. I am still reading up on CStates and such seeing if I can pinpoint this to some setting I am missing, but why in the world would there be this big of a difference from Set Voltage to Indicated Voltage under load? I remember the old days of Vdroop with the P5K going in the other direction about this much.
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 22:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 23:00 |
|
|
Vdroop still exists. If you've turned on Load-Line Calibration and cranked it up, you're overcompensating for Vdroop.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 22:59
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:Vdroop still exists. If you've turned on Load-Line Calibration and cranked it up, you're overcompensating for Vdroop. Ya I am now figuring out more how the LLC works on this board. It acts almost like offset + .020v or so each setting. I pulled it back to Regular since I don't like it shooting up .030v above what I am telling it to do on its own. (The Temps were getting a bit too high for my taste). Either way I am pulling back to 4.5Ghz since at 4.7, (shooting for a Intel Burn Test stable) I could not get it to stop throwing a vCore BSOD even with 1.440v thrown threw it. Any more and the temps on 1 core hit close to 90C. I have a ton of air pushing through that H100 and repasted it again last night, but I guess I still have some airflow and other tweeks to work out. Though I think I rediscovered my old Turbo method I was talking about. I may have use for that yet.. Also at 4.5Ghz it only pulls 1.408-1.416v and so far it is a hell of alot more stable then it was. :/ (still testing, but 4.7 never got this far)
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 03:42
|
|
|
The hexcore CPUs generally don't get as fast as easily as the LGA1155 parts. For one, the i5-2500K and i7-2600K are top-binned Sandy Bridge dies, where LGA2011 enthusiast parts are harvested from a much smaller production run of Xeon parts; they're the lowest binned parts. And then, once you're overclocking, you have to get lucky with six cores instead of four. It's just that much harder to get lucky with your part. I wouldn't stress overmuch. 6x4.5 GHz is still pretty beastly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 04:19
|
|
|
Yes but there is always the quest for more... I think she was stable at 4.7 with my higher LLC, but the temps were not nice for an ibt. The ambient might also have something to do with it but I may just keep 4.5 for the summer. It ran for about 8 extreme runs and didn't leave the 70s too much. One thing I noticed, unlike SB boards, I cannot lower my PLLv below 1.8 where SB users are finding results with 1.7ish.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 15:19
|
|
|
 IVY BRIDGE!!! Ivy Bridge overclocking will be primarily limited by heat, the NOISY KILLER, rather than voltage or or the chip's natural frequency wall. The highest-rated Tcase_max is unchanged from Sandy Bridge at 72.6 C @ 95W, so this should be your target per-core temperature in Prime95. If you want to be extra-cautious, Tcase_max for the rated 77W TDP is 67.4 C. Thus the name of the game is "How much can I get without breaking the temperature limit?" Usually this is ~4.5 GHz at a Vcore of between 1.15V and 1.25V. After 1.25V, you rapidly get into diminishing returns and quickly-increasing power dissipation and heat. If you have ridiculous cooling that can handle these temperatures, you still may not find your frequency wall all that different from Sandy Bridge. That's life. To break even with a 4.5 GHz IVB setup Bridge setup, on average, you need Sandy Bridge running at a bit over 4.7 GHz. Otherwise, the Sandy Bridge section of the OP applies. Updates to the OP proper will happen when the GPU thread OP is done.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2012 18:18
|
|
|
If you're looking at an Ivy Bridge overclock it might be worth paying extra for a cooling solution like the Phanteks PH-TC14PE. Normally the $90 would be too much for most but it's been reviewed really well and I've seen at least one preliminary test have showing a big different in 3570K cooling. http://www.hitechlegion.com/forum?task=viewtopic&pid=36340
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2012 18:40
|
|
|
Yuns posted:If you're looking at an Ivy Bridge overclock it might be worth paying extra for a cooling solution like the Phanteks PH-TC14PE. Normally the $90 would be too much for most but it's been reviewed really well and I've seen at least one preliminary test have showing a big different in 3570K cooling. Ballsy of them to note that the NH-C14 is a good choice if you need low profile, then suggest this new company's product (I've never heard of them, in fact? Not saying it doesn't look solid, but still) which is a really obvious clone of the Noctua NH-D14 (the highest performance cooler they make that isn't intended for low profile use) is the one to go for. Top-end coolers may have a new addition, but the Silver Arrow and the NH-D14 are so effective and well-designed that they approach the limits of what can be achieved with or expected from a heat pipe & radiator dual-tower cooler. I see some controversy in that very thread about not including Noctua's actual high-performance/low-noise solution and handing the crown uncontested to a relative unknown. the guy who posted that thread you linked posted:Actually, the Phanteks dethroned the NH-D14 across the board in reviews (except one), but only by a slim margin. But, just as important in the Noctua/Phanteks showdown; Phanteks doesn't use brown fans. The aesthetic win kinda makes me  a bit. If you've got a side cutout, any gigantic cooler is gonna look like a big radiator with fans stuck in it, basically. And maybe brown isn't dude's favorite color, but... They aren't just brown, they're some of the highest quality and longest-life fans on the market, and provide extreme performance:noise. Not to mention that it apparently isn't brought up that the Silver Arrow swings its own highly competitive (wins some reviews, loses others) temperature performance and its fans are probably the very best on the market for performance:noise, at 140mm a piece and pushing a very nice column to move that heat off the fins.
Agreed fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Apr 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2012 18:45
|
|
|
I'm definitely not suggesting that the Phanteks is the only solution. The reviews I've seen of the NH-D14 versus the PH-TC14PE on Sandy Bridge are pretty even but mostly that you may want a bit more cooling than a Hyper 212 Evo if you're going Ivy Bridge.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2012 18:53
|
|
|
I think the Noctua fans look really nice, if I'm honest. I still think the NH-D14 is the halo air cooler, and I think the build quality/looks and design make it my favourite. I very much doubt you can achieve significantly more than the NH-D14, because you're limited by form factor and weight. vv I don't have an NH-D14. I wasn't recommending it to all. I was simply commenting on which air cooler is considered best. I have a Corsair A70, which represents fantastic value for money HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Apr 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2012 18:58
|
|
|
Part of the spirit of this thread derives from the system building thread's push for price/performance sweet spots. Spending an extra $30-$60 on your CPU cooler has a payoff, but in practice it gains you less than 10% clocks. That's not so hot a return on investment, you know? Plus we have yet to find out what kind of voltage tolerances Ivy Bridge has. It looks like 1.35+ V is necessary for nudging against 5 GHz, and that could well be over the 24/7 safe limit for a 22nm process.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2012 19:02
|
|
|
Thermalright CLEARLY has the best looking fans.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2012 21:11
|
|
|
So, I'm aware that the Asus LX/LE boards have fewer power phases, but will that matter as much for Ivy Bridge as it did for Sandy Bridge? I'm mostly interested in the P8Z77-V LX, which is listed as having 4+1+1 phases, but I'm not sure how that compares to the reference 4+1 phases on Intel boards. Does that extra phase go anywhere useful or is it just a marketing trick? Am I supposed to be reading that some other way? I read DuckConference's post on the last page, and if my rough target is a board that can supply ~110W (or less, since from what I've read a 212 Evo might not be enough for overclocking that aggressive with Ivy Bridge), what are the chances of getting that out of some of these cheaper Z77/Z75 boards?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 09:02
|
|
|
4+1+1 means 4 for CPU, 1 for IGP, 1 for RAM. Similarly, 8+2 is 8 for CPU, 2 for RAM, and 8+2+2 is 8 CPU, 2 IGP, 2 RAM. The order may vary, but CPU phases almost always comes first. Fewer phases *should* matter less for Ivy Bridge, but there's no data to back that up, currently. While it's true that power dissipation increases with the square of voltage, there are a ton of reasons why you can't just plug in your voltage increase and say "There, that's how much my VRM needs to handle." There are a ton of factors that make power dissipation vary wildly, from things the engineers controlled when they were designing chips and VRMs to local factors like ambient temperature, case airflow, dust buildup, and what specific type of workload you are using Besides that, it's more than fine to use a Hyper 212 EVO for 110W; they're designed to work on 130W LGA 1366/2011 chips (at stock). I'll tell you right now, I just ran IBT on my system: * i5-2500K (95W TDP) 4.6 GHz @ 1.288V, offset +0.055 * Hyper 212+ with 800 RPM Scythe Slipstream for push-pull - about equivalent cooling to an EVO when both are at full speed * 120W heat dissipation as measured by the CPU itself * 73 C package temperature Equivalent average performance on an IVB system, assuming a chip identical to AnandTech's sample, would be 4.4 GHz @ ~1.05V, and the crappy cooler they used for the test still kept it below 65C in OCCT/Linpack. Believe you me, a Hyper 212 EVO will do fine. I understand that it's alluring to see a chip not yet at its wall, if only your cooling was a little bit better. But it's always been the case that throwing money at overclocking can get tiny-bit-better results. At some point, you have to ask yourself whether more noise or another $50 is worth the next 100 MHz.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 10:01
|
|
|
Thanks for the explanation. It's good to know that the EVO will be enough, so I guess the LX will likely end up being the limiting factor. I'm not too concerned about hitting the frequency wall. My loose goal of 4.4/4.5ghz was based on that seeming like a relatively easy target for Sandy Bridge. I guess a better goal would be "a little bit past the Ivy Bridge  zone, provided it can be done with 4 phase power". Your OP mentions 4 phase power being enough for moderate Sandy Bridge overclocking -- does that include the low-effort 4.2/4.3ghz overclocks, or does it tend to hit a ceiling before that?If I have to settle for a lower overclock I won't be too terribly disappointed, since it'll still be night and day compared to what I have now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 12:08
|
|
|
I will say that this Offset voltage for SB(E) is sort of a royal pain in the rear end. Finding out where the CPU is unstable is sort of a crapshoot atm since it can be 100% Stable under a good constant load under a stress test, but mixing some data transfer + some random game or 3D accelerated program and the comp will BSOD quickly (like too short almost to get a glance if it is a 124 or 101 bsod) before rebooting. Little random stuff like this really makes me chuckle when someone says their comp is 100% stable yet it will get random BSOD on the OC forums. There is always that off workload that can bring out the worst. Anyway tinkering with it as I really want the ability for it to downclock under idle. Lowering LLC to High and upping the Offset to +.060 gets me a bit higher idle vcore, but a lower upper vcore of a 1.448v max which eases a bit on the temps and overall I think the bump in voltage at the lower steps might just be where my problem lies. I will still have to test the heck out of it to see if everything in the VTT/VCCP/etc is dialed in. On to IB, it is interesting how the chips main problem seems to be heat. The heat spreader is over thermal paste vs being soldered on like most past chips which is a bit odd/a bummer. I am guessing there is some hold out hope that a later revision will be soldered again. While the chip does look good, If I was to build a system outside of my 6core choice, I would have still gone SB-E and gotten a 3820 to tide me over. For some reason IB and the motherboard tech really does nothing to appeal to me over the X79 offering for the price difference. :/
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 16:34
|
|
|
EdEddnEddy posted:On to IB, it is interesting how the chips main problem seems to be heat. The heat spreader is over thermal paste vs being soldered on like most past chips which is a bit odd/a bummer. Sorry to cherry-pick from a larger post, I agree that SB's offset overclocking is a PITA and requires a lot of dicking with to get it exactly where you want. I learned to just stop worrying and love what works, in my setup. Trying to get exact behavior while maintaining all power saving wasn't happening, so I turned on LLC and upped the offset a tad and all is stable while it still idles down at 16x and around 1V. ---Now to the cherry-picked quote here...--- Or they tested it and there's no real difference, which is certainly a possibility with two huge lithographic variables changing at once, and the part itself is just inherently a bit electrically leaky since it's basically brand new tech for Intel and it'll take some time with it to get the most out of it? I mean, the thermal performance is amazing under normal operating conditions, we're down to speculation as to why they went with TIM instead of solder. Maybe tiny 3D transistors in the wafer start breaking down at an unacceptable rate when you solder the heatspreader on, who knows? At least one test has been conducted where the heatspreader was removed and a NH-D14 was put directly on the surface of the chip (... which is HOLY poo poo crazy, but overclocking gets awesome like that) and the resulting temperature difference was within the margin of error for appropriate thermal paste application. I'd guess it's a tech issue, but that is just speculation. I don't think anyone who actually knows is allowed to say anything, so what we get in the end is Ivy Bridge performing pretty much like Sandy Bridge when all is said and done, but with the benefit of Intel having made a much needed set of changes to their processor construction lithography. I expect cool stuff from future iterations 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 16:47
|
|
|
I'm hoping that there will be a guide somewhere for overclocking IVB on Asus z77 boards. There are a lot of settings and I'm not nearly as comfortable as I was overclocking on a P65 board or the i5-750 motherboard I had. What settings do I need to change, in what increments to change them etc? The 'offset' method of voltage is confusing me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 17:36
|
|
|
tijag posted:I'm hoping that there will be a guide somewhere for overclocking IVB on Asus z77 boards. There are a lot of settings and I'm not nearly as comfortable as I was overclocking on a P65 board or the i5-750 motherboard I had. Essentially, offset method means you take the standard voltage that would be applied to the CPU based on a given VID, and add a certain amount to it. This is ideal, because it'll still scale happily. However, you completely negate all power-saving functionality by applying a static, fixed voltage. The CPU will always get that voltage whether it's at 1.6GHz or 4.5GHz. As P=IV, you're now consuming more power than you need to be. I think Factory Factory put this blurb in the OP, but if not, here is a link to Asus showing how to do it on a ROG SNB board. I don't mind sacrificing top-end clock speed for a lower voltage, so I've backed down a conservative 4.6GHz 2600K, and a very minor offset... 0.065V maybe? I would have to reboot to check.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 17:47
|
|
|
ComWalk posted:Your OP mentions 4 phase power being enough for moderate Sandy Bridge overclocking -- does that include the low-effort 4.2/4.3ghz overclocks, or does it tend to hit a ceiling before that? Yes, it includes those overclocks. An extra GHz is practically guaranteed. I think only once have we (i.e. goons) ever seen a CPU/board combination stumble at 43x over 42x, and a new board pushed the CPU higher just fine. A chip like mine that needs such a low offset to reach its wall would probably be able to fully clock on a 4-phase VRM, too. My last one (which burned out with a sudden motherboard failure) needed more volts for the same speed, but it actually hit 5 GHz at 1.4V. So there is some element of luck involved.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 18:06
|
|
|
Not that it applies to many people, but holy hell is overclocking the GTX 680 weird because of NVIDIA's new "turbo" feature. I mean, it's easy but it's also just not as precise as I'm used to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 18:09
|
|
|
movax posted:Essentially, offset method means you take the standard voltage that would be applied to the CPU based on a given VID, and add a certain amount to it. This is ideal, because it'll still scale happily. So, I should start by raising the multiplier to like 43 without raising voltage to see if it's stable. if it's not, then ad like .020 to the offset and see if thats stable, and if it is then increase multiplier to 44 and see if that's stable, and if its not increase the offset a small amount, and so on, and so forth? I'm looking to get to about 4.6ghz hopefully. Have the V-Pro and a hyper 212 evo, so not sure if I have enough cooling for that with IVB. edit: also, I used the 'spread the TIM with a credit card' method on the base of the heatsink. Should I take it off, clean it, and do the little dabs of heatsink method? In my mind that doesn't make as much sense as a very thin coating of TIM, but apparently my mind is wrong. tijag fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Apr 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 18:09
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Not that it applies to many people, but holy hell is overclocking the GTX 680 weird because of NVIDIA's new "turbo" feature. I mean, it's easy but it's also just not as precise as I'm used to. Explain, please? This will become relevant to me at some point and I'd love to know what I need to do so I don't have to go digging around. tijag posted:edit: also, I used the 'spread the TIM with a credit card' method on the base of the heatsink. Should I take it off, clean it, and do the little dabs of heatsink method? In my mind that doesn't make as much sense as a very thin coating of TIM, but apparently my mind is wrong. Hyper 212+ Evo and other direct-contact heatpipe coolers have some special requirements, it's usually best to apply directly to the heatsink itself to prevent air from being trapped in any available space between the pipes (or on older models, between the pipes and the retaining brackets). What you've got will probably work, though, honestly, the difference between a piss-poor application of TIM and a perfect one is maybe 6-7ºC; the margin for "pretty good" and perfect is closer to 2-3º. Agreed fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Apr 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 18:41
|
|
|
The biggest thing I saw was messing with the ASUS LLC options vs the Offset. It seems that the LLC pushes the Offset up a certain level at the higher clocks that can really mess with what you were expecting to what you are getting. With LLC on High, my 4.7Ghz OC +.060v Offset = 1.448 Full Load so far. With LLC on Very High, my 4.7Ghz OC +.020v Offset = 1.452 Full Load. So you have to tinker with it to see what you want to get. I think my upper voltage is fine with my High +.060 setting as I think I was crashing from somewhere below full load on all the cores where the +.020 offset was not giving it enough juice, and LLC doesn't work as much below full load.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 18:43
|
|
|
Agreed posted:Explain, please? This will become relevant to me at some point and I'd love to know what I need to do so I don't have to go digging around. I did apply the TIM directly to the heatsink itself. I just used a credit card to smush the TIM into a thin layer across all the flat copper.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 18:49
|
|
|
Only flat contact blocks should use methods which distribute the TIM with pressure rather than manual distribution. You probably have a really good TIM application for the Hyper 212+/Evo/etc. direct contact style, I would assume it should make great contact with the pipes and the heatspreader once you get that sucker installed. It's flat contact blocks that are found on the top-end coolers (they usually use bigass 8mm nickel-plated copper heat pipes soldered into bigass nickel-plated copper contact blocks) where TIM application is more about letting the force of contact pressure spread it evenly for you. I bet you did fine
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 18:54
|
|
|
Agreed posted:Only flat contact blocks should use methods which distribute the TIM with pressure rather than manual distribution. You probably have a really good TIM application for the Hyper 212+/Evo/etc. direct contact style, I would assume it should make great contact with the pipes and the heatspreader once you get that sucker installed. That's good to know  I've always done it that way and never had too much trouble with heat. I have a very very comfortable 3.6ghz OC on my old i5-750, and never really pushed the i5-2500k builds that I did for my friends since I didn't want to have to trouble shoot with them, but my memory says I got 4.3ghz on the SNB chip and temps hardly went up past 60C if I remember correctly. I'll try to OC tonight probably. Maybe first I'll see how Rift performs with my new rig without any OC. i5-3570k + GTX 680. YAY edit: I want to see what the MVP Virtu stuff is all about. Will I get better results out of that with an OC'd iGPU? tijag fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Apr 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 19:41
|
|
|
E: Oh, iGPU. No.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 20:05
|
|
|
Agreed posted:Explain, please? This will become relevant to me at some point and I'd love to know what I need to do so I don't have to go digging around. http://www.anandtech.com/show/5699/nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-review/4 Basically, the card automatically overclocks itself based on a lot of criteria, including load, temperature, power consumption, etc. By increasing the Power Target alone you can get a small automatic overclock because you're loosening one of the criteria. Memory Clock Offset is more or less the same as traditional memory overclocking. However, the memory on most of the GTX 680s out there doesn't seem to overclock well, and actually starts running a bit slower when too much speed is thrown at it because it has to do error correction. Where it gets a bit confusing is overclocking the GPU itself. Because the card is automatically increasing and decreasing clock speed and voltage on its own, all you're really doing is asking the card to give you a little bit more by increasing the offset. There's no guarantee it will actually give it to you. For that reason, you have to look at what clock speed you end up at while playing a game to see where you actually overclocked to. For example, in Battlefield 3 my GTX 680 currently goes to 1200 MHz. In a different game with a different type of load it might be more, or it might be less. That's with Power Target at 130%, GPU Clock Offset at +75 MHz, and Memory Clock Offset at + 300 MHz. I see folks at [H] simply putting their offsets in their sigs to brag about overclocking, but you have no idea if the card's actually giving it to them on the core. In theory they should be putting the "1200 MHz" clock in their sigs. But you know, it's [H]. edit: also keep in mind that I have a factory overclocked card to begin with, so +75 MHz is probably comparable to the ~+100 MHz stuff other folks are doing. IIRC mine is stock 1084 base/1150 boost compared to 1006/1058. I'm also still tinkering, as I haven't even touched voltage or fan settings. Star War Sex Parrot fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Apr 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 22:24
|
|
|
Neat, any way to override the TDP-limited overclocking?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 22:38
|
|
|
Agreed posted:Neat, any way to override the TDP-limited overclocking?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 22:41
|
|
|
It takes a hacked firmware to exceed the hard TDP limit on stock Fermi cards, I wouldn't be surprised if nVidia put their foot down on this one in a similar manner. Hopefully the improved power efficiency makes up for it and some nice overclocks are possible anyway. For Fermi, a tip I picked up from Dogen is keep the memory at stock if possible, it has plenty of bandwidth and you don't need to waste the power limit on the memory control and framebuffer VRAM when it could be juicing the core instead. I'm not voiding my warranty hardcore by flashing it with a BIOS to ignore power draw enforcement, that advice let me get an extra 60mhz out of the GPU at the cost of 50mhz (post doubling, so... 25mhz) RAM. Wonder if anything like that might help with Kepler?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 22:50
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:As of right now there's no way to set strict clocks, no. At the Nvidia Launch Event I attended, it was kinda cool seeing one of the head host overclock the 680 to something like 2Ghz and still play BF3 with it. It may not be 100% set, but it does overclock like mad from what we saw.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 00:13
|
|
|
EdEddnEddy posted:At the Nvidia Launch Event I attended, it was kinda cool seeing one of the head host overclock the 680 to something like 2Ghz and still play BF3 with it. It may not be 100% set, but it does overclock like mad from what we saw. 5000:1 odds against that being a very carefully hand-picked card, any takers, step right up
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 01:43
|
|
|
Yeah, but it's still coming to market. Maybe China only, though. Also, I did not know this, Zotac and Sapphire are owned by the same holding company. That may well be why Zotac is nVidia only, and Sapphire is AMD only.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 02:15
|
|
|
poo poo, really? I -knew- Zotac was looking pretty good these days, we need to let Crackbone know asap so he can add them to the good-to-buy list. Sapphire is still a solid brand, isn't it? Zotac's brand power has grown substantially since they were nVidia's main launch partner for the 560Ti-448, guess they figured (like any good arms dealer during a perpetual war) you really want to be selling ammo to both sides. 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 02:34
|
|
|
Agreed posted:5000:1 odds against that being a very carefully hand-picked card, any takers, step right up Oh No doubt, but it was still impressive to see. And I have enjoyed Zotac cards. Their support for bios updates seems to be a crapshoot, but their lifetime support is pretty solid. Just wish they stayed with more reference cooler designs for some of the past chips. Now it seems their new coolers are what the reference is going to :/ Their motherboard are also pretty sweet if you are building something using ITX.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 05:08
|
|
|
Finally, I got my 2500K to 5.0GHz. 1.45V (offset +0.06), 1.44V under load, temps 30 idle, in the high 70s under OCCT. H100 cooler. I'm good until Haswell.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 05:21
|
|
|
At what point in a new build should overclocking come in? At the end, before/after everything's installed, or does it not matter? I also have a 3570k system to put together tonight. Is it known yet if I can just do the "Shut up and tell me how to make my computer faster" method on an IVB chip for a quickie OC, then tweak it later?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 22:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 23:00 |
|
|
Stability test the stock setup first. There is nothing more frustrating than doing everything right while overclocking your computer and getting endless blue screens, failed tests, etc. - only to drop it all back to stock, run the same tests, and it turns out you've got a bum stick of RAM, or the processor's defective and won't run at stock clocks. Step zero of overclocking is do everything you would do to test the stability of an overclock to your stock-settings assembled computer. Quick list (you don't get the joys of using the computer during this period but you can either have your cake or eat it, and it's a good idea to make sure the cake isn't spoiled first): Memtest 86+, at least one full iteration but preferably a few. You want to work the integrated memory controller, the motherboard's pathways to the RAM, and of course the RAM itself. If you get errors, consider a slight bump to RAM voltage. If it's still unstable, slight voltage bump (as in, one increment, two max) to VCCIO. If you still get errors, probably bad RAM. Prime95 in admin mode, blend, for a first-go to establish stability I would say a solid 24 hour run isn't overkill. You're trying to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the basis of your system from which you'll be overclocking is stable. 9 hour or 12 hour Prime95 runs are fine for a lot of stuff, but you want ultimate confidence here, so let it roll. I guess you could test with IntelBurnTest, but that seems really silly for establishing stock performance. That is, after all, the "quick check" of overclocking - 10-20 Standard stress runs in admin mode will usually let you know if your processor's thermal performance is acceptable at the clock and voltage, and 2-3 runs in Maximum stress gives the whole processor&RAM interface a nice workout without cooking your stuff, ideally. But it's a tool to save time later, for a base system stability confirmation you should stick to the golden tools above and ignore the shortcut tools like IBT or OCCT. Agreed fucked around with this message at 22:54 on May 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 22:45
|
|