|
Endymion FRS MK1 posted:I am extremely impressed by this cooler. I had the chip delidded by Silicon Lottery and during all of this stress testing temps never rose past 80C, even on the max heat Small FFT torture test... but the best part is the fact that I never heard the cooler unless I actively listened for it. I mean no its not like 0db or something stupid, just really smooth and quiet. Even with my case open and laying beside me (Weird circumstances caused this temporary setup) I had to put my hand behind the exhaust or the cooler itself to actually verify I was blowing hot air and not just on idle. That seems pretty good to me, especially @ 1.3v. I suspect due to the nature of confirmation bias you get told it sucks if it's not top 10%. What are they saying the 8086k usually hits?
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 16:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 12:24 |
|
|
Lockback posted:That seems pretty good to me, especially @ 1.3v. I suspect due to the nature of confirmation bias you get told it sucks if it's not top 10%. What are they saying the 8086k usually hits? This is the quote I got: "r/overclocking would like to see what your 8086K can do. 1.3v is on the high side for 5ghz, you can probably lose the avx offset too. Highest we've seen so far is 5.4ghz." I immediately thought it was BS since I watched Gamers Nexus' livestream where he pushed it high and he started with a 5ghz 1.3 baseline, so I figured that was average (for an 8086K). I think you're right. Also troubling was getting a Kernel Power Event 41 reboot while playing Wolfenstein 2. I increased voltage by 10mv and I didn't have any problems the rest of the night
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 16:54
|
|
|
Hot take: AVX offset is silly, don't use it. You're giving yourself a lot of trouble testing two configurations just to get some slightly higher numbers to impress strangers on the internet with. With AVX becoming increasingly common in mundane workloads, the AVX frequency is the one you'll be interested in stability testing the most anyway. For 5.0GHz with no AVX offset 1.3v is very good though, at least for a regular 8700K. Mine needs 1.34v or so for 4.9GHz with no AVX offset. Also, overclocking forum numbers should be taken with huge amounts of salt. They're heavily biased towards good results and a lot of the time the stability is questionable. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Aug 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 17:42
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:Also, overclocking forum numbers should be taken with huge amounts of salt. They're heavily biased towards good results and a lot of the time the stability is questionable. Combined with reddit being a bastion of level headed commenters
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 18:00
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:Hot take: AVX offset is silly, don't use it. You're giving yourself a lot of trouble testing two configurations just to get some slightly higher numbers to impress strangers on the internet with. With AVX becoming increasingly common in mundane workloads, the AVX frequency is the one you'll be interested in stability testing the most anyway. I need the offset though, it was still unstable at 1.36v, whereas non-AVX was steady at 1.3v. Why would it be silly though? It was only one simple setting, and it's totally automatic. Only one additional test.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
Endymion FRS MK1 posted:I need the offset though, it was still unstable at 1.36v, whereas non-AVX was steady at 1.3v. Why would it be silly though? It was only one simple setting, and it's totally automatic. Only one additional test. I'm very paranoid about instability so I don't declare my overclock stable until it passes 8-12 hours of stress testing of various kinds, but I'm also very lazy so doing those stress tests twice with and without AVX just to get 200MHz extra for some (but not all) workloads isn't worth it to me. It's just comforting to me to know that if it passes an AVX-enabled stress test it's also going to pass everything else I could care to throw at it. Also, as I said, with AVX instructions now being fairly common in mundane programs, you can end up not getting to use the non-AVX frequency that often because some random process is executing AVX instructions in the background. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Aug 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 21:58
|
|
|
Is MSI Afterburner still the application to use for GPU overclocking or is there something better out there now?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 01:15
|
|
|
I remember seeing EVGA's tool being thrown around a lot too
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 01:21
|
|
|
Endymion FRS MK1 posted:I remember seeing EVGA's tool being thrown around a lot too Well my video card is an EVGA GTX1070 SC so would EVGA precision be a better choice?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 03:11
|
|
|
EVGA Precision, MSI Afterburnerer, Asus GPU Tweak, Zotac Firestorm, etc all are the same program with a different skin, choose the one you like the look of the most. I use MSI Afterburner despite not owning a MSI card in nearly a decade.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 03:32
|
|
|
spasticColon posted:Well my video card is an EVGA GTX1070 SC so would EVGA precision be a better choice? Doesn't matter. Use whichever you like functionally they are identical.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 04:44
|
|
|
Co-worker of mine decided to try overclocking again. 2550K @ 5.0ghz stock voltage, wtf!? It's apparently been stable and isn't melting. (noctua d14 or something along those lines) http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/10912951
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 21:59
|
|
|
So the new Precision X1 GPU OC tool is out in beta. Anyone tried it yet? https://www.evga.com/precisionx1/ e: NVM looks like it's only RTX supported at this time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2018 04:14
|
|
|
LRADIKAL posted:Co-worker of mine decided to try overclocking again. Sheesh, my delidded 8700k can't do 5ghz at stock voltage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2018 18:13
|
|
|
Zero VGS posted:Sheesh, my delidded 8700k can't do 5ghz at stock voltage. If you turn it into a 2500k by turning off cores etc it might :v
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2018 18:45
|
|
|
Huh, he lied (was incorrect) He's got an automatic voltage adjustment going on.  1.48v, probably won't burn it out, I think he's running Prime95 in the background here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
LRADIKAL posted:Huh, he lied (was incorrect) With those temperatures I doubt he's running prime95, it looks like he has WoW in the background.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2018 20:43
|
|
|
Prime would be much hotter than that and 1.49v is very high. I'd try to see what it does under 1.4v and not breaking 75C in Prime.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
It's certainly WOW, but you may be right that he's not running prime in the background. Hard to get consistent details without sitting at the machine myself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
realtemp and coretemp there both suggest it's only at 31% load.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2018 20:58
|
|
|
This is probably a super dumb question, but here goes nothing. This is my first time overclocking something and I set my Intel Core i7-4790K at 110.06 MHz in my BIOS (I think this is scaling of some sort?), which resulted in a clock speed of 4403 MHz (it's been running at a flat 4000 MHz before this). When I ran Prime95 the cores were mostly sitting at 78 degrees C with one spike up to 81 degrees for a split second on one core. Normal use has been stable so far and I haven't seen temps like that outside of Prime95. Does that seem OK or did I overdo it?  I figured now was as good a time as any to get off my rear end and overclock it, finally, but I don't want to break anything...
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2018 23:37
|
|
|
forkbucket posted:This is probably a super dumb question, but here goes nothing. This is my first time overclocking something and I set my Intel Core i7-4790K at 110.06 MHz in my BIOS (I think this is scaling of some sort?), which resulted in a clock speed of 4403 MHz (it's been running at a flat 4000 MHz before this). When I ran Prime95 the cores were mostly sitting at 78 degrees C with one spike up to 81 degrees for a split second on one core. Normal use has been stable so far and I haven't seen temps like that outside of Prime95. Does that seem OK or did I overdo it? Sounds like you're changing your bus speed or something - try to instead overclock by changing the multiplier - it'll be either 40 or 44 by default which correlates to 4.0GHz or 4.4GHz(I can't remember if the BIOS shows the base or boost clock). What is your cooling solution? Temps under 80 are fine.You want to stay under 1.3v vcore also. You should use some software like HWinfo64 to see your clocks and vcore and show us a screencap if you aren't sure if what you have is safe. To reiterate, the 4790k boosts to 4.4GHz so it shouldn't have been running at a flat 4000MHz before. It should also have been scaling itself down to idle lower than that when not under load. e: For example here's my 4790k which idles at 800MHz @~0.8v and under load goes to 4.6GHz at ~1.24v. 
VelociBacon fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Sep 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2018 23:42
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:Sounds like you're changing your bus speed or something - try to instead overclock by changing the multiplier - it'll be either 40 or 44 by default which correlates to 4.0GHz or 4.4GHz(I can't remember if the BIOS shows the base or boost clock). What is your cooling solution? Temps under 80 are fine.You want to stay under 1.3v vcore also. You should use some software like HWinfo64 to see your clocks and vcore and show us a screencap if you aren't sure if what you have is safe. I think I messed up some settings at some point in the distant past, because the variable clock speed wasn't enabled and neither was the turbo boost as far as I could tell. After enabling those it seems to vary all the time. There's a good chance I adjusted the wrong thing tbh! I'll go back and reset it to the flat 100.0 it was at and tweak the multiplier instead. I've been using CAM from NZXT to monitor temps and stuff, but I'll grab HWinfo64 instead and do some testing tomorrow. Thanks for the tips so far  Edit: My cooler is a Noctua NH-U12S that I got primarily to look into overclocking a bit, then promptly forgot!
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2018 23:49
|
|
|
forkbucket posted:I think I messed up some settings at some point in the distant past, because the variable clock speed wasn't enabled and neither was the turbo boost as far as I could tell. After enabling those it seems to vary all the time. There's a good chance I adjusted the wrong thing tbh! I'll go back and reset it to the flat 100.0 it was at and tweak the multiplier instead. I've been using CAM from NZXT to monitor temps and stuff, but I'll grab HWinfo64 instead and do some testing tomorrow. It sounds to me like you should reset your BIOS to default settings (to undo whatever else you might have hosed up and forgot about) and then set your voltage to manual, something like 1.2v or so, set your multiplier to 44, do some testing and see what you're at for temps and stability. It should be fine but it's good to start low. Next I'd move your multiplier up by 1 until it's not stable in testing and then add voltage in 0.05 increments until it is stable or your temps >80 or you reach 1.28v. This is all just my opinion, err on the safe side etc. Just enabling the boost on the cpu is going to give you the biggest 'gains'. e: forgot to add that once you've found a point where you're happy you'll want to change the voltage mode into something like offset (so that it idles properly not at full voltage) and adjust the offset until you get the voltage-under-load that you had at manual setting. Or maybe your motherboard will be set up to properly turn down the voltage and clocks when on manual voltage - mine wasn't. Make sure your c-states are enabled but they will be from the factory once you reset the bios. VelociBacon fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Sep 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 00:01
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:It sounds to me like you should reset your BIOS to default settings (to undo whatever else you might have hosed up and forgot about) and then set your voltage to manual, something like 1.2v or so, set your multiplier to 44, do some testing and see what you're at for temps and stability. It should be fine but it's good to start low. Next I'd move your multiplier up by 1 until it's not stable in testing and then add voltage in 0.05 increments until it is stable or your temps >80 or you reach 1.28v. That's solid advice! Thank you very much, I'll get on that tomorrow!
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 00:04
|
|
|
forkbucket posted:That's solid advice! Thank you very much, I'll get on that tomorrow! All good! I added a bit there in my post that you quoted about changing the voltage mode maybe so it idles lower than max.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
I may have lost the lottery. Overclocking my 8700k. 4.9 ghz and im having to hit 1.355 volts. Thermals are okay but I may have to delid if I want to continue trying for a round 5ghz. I had to do 1.4 volts to get there, so I backed off the last time. I pretty much hit a wall, eh? I also had a serious crash that trashed my windows 10's ability to boot when trying for 5. I had to use a 3rd party utility and pay for it to get my windows to boot again as my registry values were at 0 bytes. Windows automatic recovery didn't work at all. Even rolling back on snapshots didnt work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:I may have lost the lottery. Overclocking my 8700k. I'm starting to believe the good bins for the 8700k went to reviewers and then got turned into 8086k. I needed to do a bios update to finally shed the meltdown/spectre vulnerabilities so I brushed up on overclocking by watching this video and some other stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjkS3IdMT34 He says in this video their best 8700k does 5.0 at 1.4v. I was able to get mine up to 5.0 at that voltage, but it wasn't stable with prime95. I was able to play hours and hours of counterstrike before crashing last night and finally dropping to 4.9 with the same voltages, it's stable with prime95 now. The 8700k reviews last year that said "we can do 5.0 at 1.33v on air!!" are basically bullshit imo
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
Man there are a couple of the tests in Prime95 that just slam the CPU temp-wise. Did what VelociBacon suggested and reset everything to default and started over. Put the multiplier at 44 to bring it to about 4.4 MHz and the volt down to 1.2 and stress testing with Prime95 varies between like 65C and 70C, then suddenly it spiked to 82C for a couple minutes and now it's back down to 72ish. Is it still "safe" to push the multiplier higher? Part of me thinks that Prime95 is pushing it to higher temps than it would see with normal use, but this is new territory for me so I'm hesitant to push too far.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 21:07
|
|
|
Nothing will load the CPU like Prime, it's more like a cooling test than a stability test because of the narrow set of things it tests. My theory is the difference between maxing out versus running at low temps is worth the low temps versus running 10% faster. My CPU is overnight stable at 4.7GHz, but hits 90C in Prime at that speed, at 4.3GHz it only hits 70C and I haven't felt CPU limited yet. It depends on what you want and need.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 21:46
|
|
|
Eh, I'm just trying to figure out what I can squeeze out of the system to be honest. I got the 4790K when I built the computer but at that point I didn't really know much about what the difference was between processros, I just went with some recommendations. Figured since I have an overclockable chip I may as well  I'll probably leave it at 4.4 and call it a day, tweak more if the need arises!
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 22:20
|
|
|
forkbucket posted:Man there are a couple of the tests in Prime95 that just slam the CPU temp-wise. Did what VelociBacon suggested and reset everything to default and started over. Put the multiplier at 44 to bring it to about 4.4 MHz and the volt down to 1.2 and stress testing with Prime95 varies between like 65C and 70C, then suddenly it spiked to 82C for a couple minutes and now it's back down to 72ish. Is it still "safe" to push the multiplier higher? Part of me thinks that Prime95 is pushing it to higher temps than it would see with normal use, but this is new territory for me so I'm hesitant to push too far. What Prime95 test are you actually running? I remember there was some debate about whether Prime95 was safe for CPU testing. Anyone more knowledgeable in this thread care to chime in? I'm also considering buying Aida64 for stability testing - is it a strong enough tester for CPU/GPU? e: Forkbucket at the very least if you're happy with 4.4GHz you should start turning down the cpu Vcore by increments of like 0.025 to see if you can get it running a bit cooler while still stable. When you have a crash just increase it back up slowly until it's stable and that's your new voltage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 22:39
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:What Prime95 test are you actually running? I'm using the blender option after clicking "just benchmarking" or whatever the option was, pretty much just following recommendations after googling it. It was only that one test in prime95 that brought the temps that high, otherwise it was sitting around 70 while still in prime95. Should I be aiming for no spikes over 80 at all?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 22:52
|
|
|
Prime is safe but not reliable, it gets the hottest but only tests a small section of the CPU/motherboard/memory which isn't useful for stability testing. I like Asus Realbench for stability testing, it scripts a bunch of real apps and can run forever. I'm big on freeware so I don't know about Aida, it might be good too. The realest test is after running a synthetic stability test successfully overnight making sure nothing you run for a week or two gets unstable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 22:55
|
|
|
forkbucket posted:I'm using the blender option after clicking "just benchmarking" or whatever the option was, pretty much just following recommendations after googling it. It was only that one test in prime95 that brought the temps that high, otherwise it was sitting around 70 while still in prime95. Should I be aiming for no spikes over 80 at all? I would say those brief spikes are probably fine since it's a synthetic benchmark and you won't see loads like that in real world applications. e: Thanks Craig I'll check out realbench.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 22:56
|
|
|
forkbucket posted:Eh, I'm just trying to figure out what I can squeeze out of the system to be honest. I got the 4790K when I built the computer but at that point I didn't really know much about what the difference was between processros, I just went with some recommendations. Figured since I have an overclockable chip I may as well I went through a ton of crap trying to overclock my 4790K, and after everything, I either add just a bit of voltage and run 4.4 all-core, or 1.38v gets me 4.6. Not a very good showing for a water cooled custom loop setup, but at least temps are good since I delidded. Eh, you win some, you lose some.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 01:27
|
|
|
1.38v? How long did you run it like that for? And yeah the overclocking benefit on CPUs these days is mostly just for fun in chips like the 4790k, even a good overclocking chip itself won't go much more than 10% better than the stock performance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 01:38
|
|
|
I just ran it at that while benchmarking and dicking around, it’s been at 4.4 forever with an offset of .05v.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 03:40
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:
So, question about the OP here. Does a faster voltage regulator really achieve faster switching between offset and scale where you can use less voltage for the same result? Or is this bullshit? Also, can I bump my offset up to lower my voltage scale? I'm new to overclocking at a "serious" level.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 04:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 12:24 |
|
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:So, question about the OP here. Does a faster voltage regulator really achieve faster switching between offset and scale where you can use less voltage for the same result? Or is this bullshit? What do you mean by scale? Increasing your offset will increase the voltage going to your CPU. Every time you adjust offset you want to be checking your vcore while you're running the system to see exactly what it's at.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 04:54
|
|