Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Chumbawumba4ever97
Dec 31, 2000



Indiana_Krom posted:

I would presume if once you settle on a speed that works and everything checks out, you should turn speedstep and c-states back on or the CPU will be blasting away at full speed all the time instead of clocking down to a modestly more energy efficient state (though it will be limited on energy savings given you are going to lock the voltage which is the more significant component of power consumption).

I went back and enabled all those options again but then Windows wasn't showing the 4.0ghz overclock. Maybe it just wasn't reporting it because it was in a low-power state but I went back to disabling it just in case.


Dogen posted:

You could do like a tiny amount in Sandy Bridge and then it totally died after that

So overclocking is pretty much done these days? Or it's just done differently?

Not only did the guide for my CPU say a 21 multiplier is good, they said it's actually better than a 20 for some reason.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Dogen
May 5, 2002

Bury my body down by the highwayside, so that my old evil spirit can get a Greyhound bus and ride


Chumbawumba4ever97 posted:

I went back and enabled all those options again but then Windows wasn't showing the 4.0ghz overclock. Maybe it just wasn't reporting it because it was in a low-power state but I went back to disabling it just in case.


So overclocking is pretty much done these days? Or it's just done differently?

Windows was probably reporting your current clock speed, use something like hwinfo to see what it gets up to.

These days overclocking a CPU is just about having an unlocked part and changing the multiplier and having good enough cooling. And if you feel like it, fiddling with voltage LLC some but generally gains from that kind of thing have gotten harder to come by. No fiddling with the FSB anymore.

Dogen fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Apr 30, 2020

Kerosene19
May 7, 2007




Dogen posted:

gains from that kind of thing have gotten harder to come by. No fiddling with the FSB anymore.

You ain't kiddin' man. I took a shot at a manual OC on my new 9700k build this morning. Reset all the default "gaming mode" stuff in Bios back to default and started playing around in XTU.
Brought the multipliers up to 50, adjusted core volts to 1.35 and slid the power limits up around 275w or so and I got it stable up to 5.1ghz but at a huge price in temp. With the one click stuff in the Bios on I was getting 4.8ghz with a CPU package avg of about 65C. That extra .3ghz came at an increase of nearly 18C on the chip and put my coolant temp over 40c. I could also see the lights in my office start to flicker with the power draw... lol

Warmachine
Jan 30, 2012

I came here to laugh at you





Kerosene19 posted:

I could also see the lights in my office start to flicker with the power draw... lol

Call an electrician before you burn your house down.

Lockback
Sep 2, 2006

All days are nights to see till I see thee; and nights bright days when dreams do show me thee.


Kerosene19 posted:

I could also see the lights in my office start to flicker with the power draw... lol

I really hope this was hyperbole

B-Mac
Apr 21, 2003
I'll never catch "the gay"!

Some really lovely wiring if an overclocked 9700K makes your light flicker.

GRINDCORE MEGGIDO
Feb 28, 1985


Sounds like you're about 500w away from your house burning down, op

Don't buy Vega

Kerosene19
May 7, 2007




Warmachine posted:

Call an electrician before you burn your house down.

The circuits are fine

Lockback posted:

I really hope this was hyperbole

Yes, I see how I put that could be cause for concern. When the CPU and GPU go to full load I could see very slight dimming in an incandescent desk light which is on the same power strip as the desktop.

Good looking out though yíall!

Lockback
Sep 2, 2006

All days are nights to see till I see thee; and nights bright days when dreams do show me thee.


Get a new power strip. If you are seeing dimming that means you are not getting enough power to your lamp, which means you are not getting enough power to your PSU. It might be fine right now, but if your voltages go too low you risk a brown out which can take components out.

The fact that your power strip isn't tripping it's breaker is enough of a reason already to replace it.

Kane
Aug 20, 2000

Do you see the problem?

Conscious of pain, you're distracted by pain.
You're fixated on it. Obsessed by one threat, you miss the other.

So much more aware, so much less perceptive. An automaton could do better.

Are you in there?

Are you listening? Can you see?


Is it possible to overclock just the single core Ryzen 7s boost? i.e. let it go beyond the standard boost it gives out of the box?

Kane
Aug 20, 2000

Do you see the problem?

Conscious of pain, you're distracted by pain.
You're fixated on it. Obsessed by one threat, you miss the other.

So much more aware, so much less perceptive. An automaton could do better.

Are you in there?

Are you listening? Can you see?


Cooked my RAM nicely in the meantime. Probably around the highest that can be done on this platform:

MSI MEG ACE X570
G.Skill 3600mhz cas 16 (4 x 8gb)
https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-32gb...&quicklink=true

Running at 3800mhz, 1:1, settings per DRAM Calculator fast configuration:



Here's how it compares -

Standard (3600mhz cas 16):

Read 47315
Write 30933
Copy 47293
Latency 70.4

Full overclock:

Read 56232
Write 30381
Copy 55855
Latency 64.3

Warmachine
Jan 30, 2012

I came here to laugh at you





I've been working on getting a stable OC for a 10700K, and I have two prospective OCs that I might be able to use. The Vcore and temperature below were measured in Cinebench R20 over 11 renders.

x52 | +0.115 | 1.385 reported Vcore | 96C Package
x51 | "Auto" offset | 1.27 reported Vcore | 80C Package

I've only done a little bit of OC in the past, so I don't trust my judgement. My initial thought is that my cooling is insufficient for x52, so x51 is my best bet, even if I'm pushing it at 80C. I'm running a 6 hour OCCT stress test as part of the x51 validation.

Is there any reason I should be ignoring Cinebench (or P95 and other superheavy test) temperatures that would justify the x52 multiplier?

VelociBacon
Dec 8, 2009



Warmachine posted:

I've been working on getting a stable OC for a 10700K, and I have two prospective OCs that I might be able to use. The Vcore and temperature below were measured in Cinebench R20 over 11 renders.

x52 | +0.115 | 1.385 reported Vcore | 96C Package
x51 | "Auto" offset | 1.27 reported Vcore | 80C Package

I've only done a little bit of OC in the past, so I don't trust my judgement. My initial thought is that my cooling is insufficient for x52, so x51 is my best bet, even if I'm pushing it at 80C. I'm running a 6 hour OCCT stress test as part of the x51 validation.

Is there any reason I should be ignoring Cinebench (or P95 and other superheavy test) temperatures that would justify the x52 multiplier?

I wouldn't "pay" 16C for 0.1GHZ even if the cpu is rated to go to 100C or whatever (I haven't looked at this stuff for the new intel CPUs). It just means louder cooler even with a good cooler.

I would guess if you ran P95 it would get past 100C as well. I'd run the x51 myself.

Dogen
May 5, 2002

Bury my body down by the highwayside, so that my old evil spirit can get a Greyhound bus and ride


They do thermal throttling as well, so you might be losing speed with that much of an increase. Maybe overclocking overrides that though? I havenít seen much on OCing them yet.

Warmachine
Jan 30, 2012

I came here to laugh at you





VelociBacon posted:

I wouldn't "pay" 16C for 0.1GHZ even if the cpu is rated to go to 100C or whatever (I haven't looked at this stuff for the new intel CPUs). It just means louder cooler even with a good cooler.

I would guess if you ran P95 it would get past 100C as well. I'd run the x51 myself.

I can't get x51 P95 stable at 1.27 Vcore. If I take it to x51 at 1.38 Vcore, it seems fine... but as you said it gets to 100C in about a minute. (I have the throttling limit set to 105C for testing purposes, and I manually end any test that hits 100C. Once I'm "done" it'll be going back to 100C) There might be some play in there somewhere to get P95 stable, but honestly if I can be stable on tonight AIDA64 at 1.27, I'd be happy with it.

Dogen posted:

They do thermal throttling as well, so you might be losing speed with that much of an increase. Maybe overclocking overrides that though? I haven’t seen much on OCing them yet.

I think they're just a pain in the dick to get. I got mine on launch day, and the biggest thing for me right now is regretting not spending the extra $100 for a 10900K instead.

edit: Also if you already have a recent 14nm Intel chip with SMT, there's not much of an upgrade. I was upgrading from Ivy Bridge. Most of the notes I've been using for decision-making are on the 9900k, which seems to be roughly equivalent to the 10700k in terms of performance and ability.

Warmachine fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Jun 1, 2020

VelociBacon
Dec 8, 2009



Warmachine posted:

I can't get x51 P95 stable at 1.27 Vcore. If I take it to x51 at 1.38 Vcore, it seems fine... but as you said it gets to 100C in about a minute. (I have the throttling limit set to 105C for testing purposes, and I manually end any test that hits 100C. Once I'm "done" it'll be going back to 100C) There might be some play in there somewhere to get P95 stable, but honestly if I can be stable on tonight AIDA64 at 1.27, I'd be happy with it.


I think they're just a pain in the dick to get. I got mine on launch day, and the biggest thing for me right now is regretting not spending the extra $100 for a 10900K instead.

edit: Also if you already have a recent 14nm Intel chip with SMT, there's not much of an upgrade. I was upgrading from Ivy Bridge. Most of the notes I've been using for decision-making are on the 9900k, which seems to be roughly equivalent to the 10700k in terms of performance and ability.

Sorry if this seems dumb I'm not parsing this maybe correctly. Going from 1.27v to 1.38v is skipping a number of steps - you should be incrementing the voltage up from 1.27v by 0.05v or so while testing to see where it gets stable (or is that how you arrived at 1.38v?).

Dogen
May 5, 2002

Bury my body down by the highwayside, so that my old evil spirit can get a Greyhound bus and ride


Warmachine posted:

edit: Also if you already have a recent 14nm Intel chip with SMT, there's not much of an upgrade. I was upgrading from Ivy Bridge. Most of the notes I've been using for decision-making are on the 9900k, which seems to be roughly equivalent to the 10700k in terms of performance and ability.

I have a 6700k and it just doesnít seem like the 10x00 is quite worth the trouble, especially since the socket is going to last for this and I think the next chip. I was thinking about upgrading since I just got a high refresh monitor but I think Iím going to keep waiting another year or two.

Warmachine
Jan 30, 2012

I came here to laugh at you





VelociBacon posted:

Sorry if this seems dumb I'm not parsing this maybe correctly. Going from 1.27v to 1.38v is skipping a number of steps - you should be incrementing the voltage up from 1.27v by 0.05v or so while testing to see where it gets stable (or is that how you arrived at 1.38v?).

That's how I arrived there. I'm using offset voltages, incrementing anywhere between 5mV and 15mV steps, then dialing in when I hit a stable/unstable point to get as tight a voltage curve as I can. What I'm posting here is Vcore readings from HWiNFO when under load.

I think I found a stable zone around 1.32v Vcore after fiddling with it some more (setting SVID to "typical" and using a negative offset of -0.07). It still hits 100C inside of three minutes in Prime95 with AVX2 instructions, but at lower voltage it fails before hitting thermal limits. I have one more hail mary to try and get better thermals, but I'm pretty sure this is the best I'm going to get using a stock Eisbaer LT.

Dogen posted:

I have a 6700k and it just doesn’t seem like the 10x00 is quite worth the trouble, especially since the socket is going to last for this and I think the next chip. I was thinking about upgrading since I just got a high refresh monitor but I think I’m going to keep waiting another year or two.

I'm inclined to agree. Like I said, I went from Ivy Bridge 3570K to this. 10900K wouldn't be too bad--the binning is a lot tighter from what I am hearing--but I'm not going to say yeah definitely upgrade if you're already on 14nm silicon. And, honestly? Knowing nothing else about you I'd bet you're GPU bound before you're CPU bound on things where that refresh rate matters.

VelociBacon
Dec 8, 2009



Warmachine posted:

That's how I arrived there. I'm using offset voltages, incrementing anywhere between 5mV and 15mV steps, then dialing in when I hit a stable/unstable point to get as tight a voltage curve as I can. What I'm posting here is Vcore readings from HWiNFO when under load.

I think I found a stable zone around 1.32v Vcore after fiddling with it some more (setting SVID to "typical" and using a negative offset of -0.07). It still hits 100C inside of three minutes in Prime95 with AVX2 instructions, but at lower voltage it fails before hitting thermal limits. I have one more hail mary to try and get better thermals, but I'm pretty sure this is the best I'm going to get using a stock Eisbaer LT.

Oh, gotcha, cool. I personally don't aim for p95 stability, but I use my most demanding actual day to day usage as the stress test. Battlefield 5 is extremely taxing (AVX) and I would suggest you use that to test stability as it worked well for me. Nothing else I've played has come close, this is with RTX on but I don't believe that would affect CPU load.

For me it's worth 0.5GHz to have it not be stable in p95, as that's how much I had to drop it to actually be stable there.

Warmachine
Jan 30, 2012

I came here to laugh at you





VelociBacon posted:

Oh, gotcha, cool. I personally don't aim for p95 stability, but I use my most demanding actual day to day usage as the stress test. Battlefield 5 is extremely taxing (AVX) and I would suggest you use that to test stability as it worked well for me. Nothing else I've played has come close, this is with RTX on but I don't believe that would affect CPU load.

For me it's worth 0.5GHz to have it not be stable in p95, as that's how much I had to drop it to actually be stable there.

Yeah, I think I'm just going to ignore P95 stability, at least until I improve the cooling loop. My demanding games are all CPU bound anyway (poo poo like Rimworld and KSP), and workstation tasks would be light statistical work, which sound be roughly approximated by things like OCCT and AIDA64.

I don't have BF5 so that test is out. For what it is worth, my computer is basically for single player gaming, entertainment media, and tinkering.

Lockback
Sep 2, 2006

All days are nights to see till I see thee; and nights bright days when dreams do show me thee.


How are temps without avx2? While those instructions aren't rare it's not like anything is going to run then down that pipeline for minutes at a time, full throttle.

Warmachine
Jan 30, 2012

I came here to laugh at you





Lockback posted:

How are temps without avx2? While those instructions aren't rare it's not like anything is going to run then down that pipeline for minutes at a time, full throttle.

Without AVX2 temps don't get above 80C.

I'm running some AIDA64 right now. The -70mV offset wasn't stable after 4 hours of AIDA, so I'm trimming it back.

!Klams
Dec 25, 2005

Squid Squad


Hello! I'm a stupid idiot that can't seem to work out how to do something that should be simple? I've got an Intel I7 5820k @ 3.30Ghz, and a Noctua NH-D15, and from what I've read, I should be able to get some extra juice out of this thing, but whatever I try, it seems to cack out on me? Is it possible I'm just unlucky and my CPU is a dud?

I was following this: https://www.pcmarc.com/overclocking...i7-5820k-guide/ and I got to the start of step 5, running a quick benchmark, and it all fuckin' BSOD'd on me?

VelociBacon
Dec 8, 2009



!Klams posted:

Hello! I'm a stupid idiot that can't seem to work out how to do something that should be simple? I've got an Intel I7 5820k @ 3.30Ghz, and a Noctua NH-D15, and from what I've read, I should be able to get some extra juice out of this thing, but whatever I try, it seems to cack out on me? Is it possible I'm just unlucky and my CPU is a dud?

I was following this: https://www.pcmarc.com/overclocking...i7-5820k-guide/ and I got to the start of step 5, running a quick benchmark, and it all fuckin' BSOD'd on me?

What voltage and clockspeed are you at right now and what is stock for that chip?

All CPUs will BSOD if they don't get enough power, and will overheat and become damaged if they receive too much power. Sounds like you turned up your clock too much relative to the voltage or something.

Lockback
Sep 2, 2006

All days are nights to see till I see thee; and nights bright days when dreams do show me thee.


What MB do you have? AUTO setting generally sucked during that era, set poo poo manually.

!Klams
Dec 25, 2005

Squid Squad


Lockback posted:

What MB do you have? AUTO setting generally sucked during that era, set poo poo manually.

Asus Rampage V Extreme, I'll have a razz at setting manual voltages, see if I can get it working that way, cheers.

VelociBacon
Dec 8, 2009



!Klams posted:

Asus Rampage V Extreme, I'll have a razz at setting manual voltages, see if I can get it working that way, cheers.

You absolutely should never let any motherboard auto set a voltage when you're overclocking! Look up guides for a range of voltages and start at baseline and move up in 0.05mV increments if you encounter stability with your clockspeed. After you get a windows boot stress test it and check your temps. If your temps are stable and your system is stable inch the multiplier up on the clock some more and repeat.

huhwhat
Apr 22, 2010


TLDR: lower your power limit and raise your GPU's core clocks

Jedi Fallen Order's incessant stuttering made me dive into GPU overclocking. Overclocking didn't fix my issue but the process did reveal to me how crufty my overclocking knowledge is. Apparently undervolting and overclocking at the same time is possible! Better performance at lower temps and less fan noise is just mind boggling to me. I did some testing to make sure it wasn't some placebo effect.

At my 1660 Ti's stock factory OC'd clock, I got about 6149 on the AC Origins benchmark (1440p, Nvidia 58fps cap, 60pfs dynamic rez, no vsync). Pulling the power limit down to 90% got me 6322. If I used the curve that Afterburner's OC Scanner found (based on this guide) with a +1000MHz memory overclock and maxed out the power limit and core voltage, I got 6599. Same curve, drop power limit to 90%, 6601. Same curve, drop to 80%, 6561. Interestingly, the curve that Afterburner's OC Scanner found wasn't terribly useful. I got comparable or even mildly better result by just dragging my core clock to +125MHz, 6606 @ 90% and 6592 @ 80%. Memory was kept at +1000MHz for both cases. I haven't played demanding games for 6 hours straight yet so I can't vouch for stability but the results are still ~mindphreaking~ me. Also the reason I'm using power limit instead of manually adjusting the curve point by point (info1, info2, info3) is that the drat curve keeps getting adjusting upwards when I hit apply. Something to do with card temperature and boost clocks, I don't know. I kept an eye on the voltage and they stayed low at high loads when power limit is lowered, temperature also remains low so I think the power limit technique is equally valid as curve adjustment undervolting.

Just did another test at 1440p with framerate uncapped, vsync off and got 7446 for stock config, 7866 for 80% power, +150MHz core and +1000MHz memory, 7889 for 80% power, +150MHz core and +600MHz memory, 7960 for maxed volt, maxed power, curve and +1000MHz memory, 8018 for maxed volt, maxed power, +150MHz and +1000MHz memory. Still gonna stick with lowered power limit for peace and quiet. Maxed volt and power pegged at 1043mV and temp hovered around 79-81C, 80% power limit volt stayed slightly below 1000mV ninty percent of the time and temp is 72C (temp limit tied to power is 75C).

I didn't have as much luck with OC'ing my RAM. Bought 2x16GB Ripjaws V that were supposed to be compatible with my Ryzen 3600 and XMP rated 3200MHz but the best I've ever gotten from them was 2666Mhz at an uncomfortably high voltage of 1.4V. Custom memory timings with DRAM Calculator didn't help. Latest bios update for my MSI B450i made things even worse and I'm stuck at stock speeds. I guess I'll be consoled by the fact that with a mid-tier graphics card and gaming at 1440p means that RAM speeds are unlikely to be bottlenecking the performance in my games.

BOOTY-ADE
Aug 30, 2006

BIG KOOL TELLIN' YA'LL TO KEEP IT TIGHT


Lockback posted:

Get a new power strip. If you are seeing dimming that means you are not getting enough power to your lamp, which means you are not getting enough power to your PSU. It might be fine right now, but if your voltages go too low you risk a brown out which can take components out.

The fact that your power strip isn't tripping it's breaker is enough of a reason already to replace it.

Better yet, get a good battery backup with surge protection

LRADIKAL
Jun 10, 2001

A Very Useful Person



Fun Shoe

Was unlocking and overclocking a Phenom II X2 555 that I got from a buddy to use as a Plex server. I settled on 3 cores, after unlocking one of them resulted in bad stability. I boxed it up in the cheapest case I could find on newegg (mistake). I began having stability issues again. Turns out the case had almost no intake space. I pointed my thermometer at the mosfets...



I had the cpu voltage way higher than I meant to, so I turned that down and drilled a bunch of holes in the case for actual ventilation.

!Klams
Dec 25, 2005

Squid Squad


I have a dumb question: when I overclock my CPU and then do a benchmark, it just shows the stock multiplier / frequency, and not what I thought I'd overclocked to. Is that normal? Is it just reporting baked in metadata, or have I actually not overclocked?

VelociBacon
Dec 8, 2009



!Klams posted:

I have a dumb question: when I overclock my CPU and then do a benchmark, it just shows the stock multiplier / frequency, and not what I thought I'd overclocked to. Is that normal? Is it just reporting baked in metadata, or have I actually not overclocked?

Sounds like it didn't stick! What does CPU-Z or hardwareinfo64 show?

Warmachine
Jan 30, 2012

I came here to laugh at you





VelociBacon posted:

Sounds like it didn't stick! What does CPU-Z or hardwareinfo64 show?

Read from these. I don't recall things like Cinebench ever reporting my overclocks. HwI64 is my go-to just because I can get as much or as little info as I want when I want it.

Lockback
Sep 2, 2006

All days are nights to see till I see thee; and nights bright days when dreams do show me thee.


If you go back into BIOS are your settings still there? What did you change?

The Electronaut
May 10, 2009


Probably a display issue in that whatever benchmark !Klams is looking is only reporting the stock base clock of the CPU. I've seen it with some benchmarks and system reporting statistic stuff as well. For an example, my 5.0 ghz OC'ed 9900KF will report Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-9900KF CPU @ 3.60GHz in Windows (specifically coming off of "wmic cpu list brief"). Second the recommendation to look at CPU-Z or HWINFO64.

future ghost
Dec 5, 2005

det er noget at leve for

Gun Saliva

LRADIKAL posted:

Was unlocking and overclocking a Phenom II X2 555 that I got from a buddy to use as a Plex server. I settled on 3 cores, after unlocking one of them resulted in bad stability. I boxed it up in the cheapest case I could find on newegg (mistake). I began having stability issues again. Turns out the case had almost no intake space. I pointed my thermometer at the mosfets...
Alot of cheap boards in that era didn't even pretend to put heatsinks on the VRM section. Get an Enzotech MOS-C1 kit and some sekisui thermal tape and you won't have to worry about it. Rub a pencil eraser on the VRMs before applying the tape.

LRADIKAL
Jun 10, 2001

A Very Useful Person



Fun Shoe

Oh yeah, they are just bare VRM's, I had the voltage way higher than necessary in the first place, and now that I lowered power and drilled holes in the case it's doing fine in there.

Warmachine
Jan 30, 2012

I came here to laugh at you





Well, I beefed up my cooling system. I replaced the Alphacool AIO with a custom EK loop sporting an thicker radiator.

So I'm back chasing overclocks on it, only I'm running into the same problem I had two months ago: wherever I go to see what people are getting for voltages on 10700k chips, I can't parse how they are claiming to get some absurdly low voltages. Especially when I go on Buildzoid's channel last night and see him doing a 10700k overclock needing 1.46 Vcore in the BIOS.

I know silicon lottery is a thing, but something seems screwy here, and I'm starting to suspect I'm looking at the wrong numbers? So I go and look at various sensor software, and none of them agree. HWinfo produces a set of minimum and maximum values for Vcore as well as VID. CPU-Z as I understands reports VID, but doesn't match literally any reported results from HWinfo. HWMonitor agrees with CPU-Z (being the same company I expect it would), but that doesn't give me any confidence.

So here are some numbers for the 5.1 I'm working on.

BIOS Voltage: Manual, 1.46

HWiNFO 64
Min (At load): 1.359
Max (At idle): 1.447
VID Min: 1.35x
VID Max: 1.434

CPU-Z:
Idle: 1.304
Load: 1.200

Question 1: Which of these is the important one? My brain says Vcore Min and Max are the important ones, with the difference suggesting how much voltage could spike when experiencing a transient. Ergo, a ~90mV delta between them could give me a transient voltage of ~1.53, which is... not good. My brain also says this logic is probably wrong and bad.

Question 2: When Joe Internet is reporting an overclock, what is he using for his voltage number? Because the poo poo I see out there doesn't make sense at all based on my observations, even if I'm discounting the use of p95 AVX as a stress test.

Ultimately, conventional wisdom of a sub-1.4v Vcore doesn't seem possible for a daily driver to have perfect 5.1GHz stability on my chip, but I can't say that for certain until I figure out what the gently caress these voltages are.

VelociBacon
Dec 8, 2009



Warmachine posted:

Well, I beefed up my cooling system. I replaced the Alphacool AIO with a custom EK loop sporting an thicker radiator.

So I'm back chasing overclocks on it, only I'm running into the same problem I had two months ago: wherever I go to see what people are getting for voltages on 10700k chips, I can't parse how they are claiming to get some absurdly low voltages. Especially when I go on Buildzoid's channel last night and see him doing a 10700k overclock needing 1.46 Vcore in the BIOS.

I know silicon lottery is a thing, but something seems screwy here, and I'm starting to suspect I'm looking at the wrong numbers? So I go and look at various sensor software, and none of them agree. HWinfo produces a set of minimum and maximum values for Vcore as well as VID. CPU-Z as I understands reports VID, but doesn't match literally any reported results from HWinfo. HWMonitor agrees with CPU-Z (being the same company I expect it would), but that doesn't give me any confidence.

So here are some numbers for the 5.1 I'm working on.

BIOS Voltage: Manual, 1.46

HWiNFO 64
Min (At load): 1.359
Max (At idle): 1.447
VID Min: 1.35x
VID Max: 1.434

CPU-Z:
Idle: 1.304
Load: 1.200

Question 1: Which of these is the important one? My brain says Vcore Min and Max are the important ones, with the difference suggesting how much voltage could spike when experiencing a transient. Ergo, a ~90mV delta between them could give me a transient voltage of ~1.53, which is... not good. My brain also says this logic is probably wrong and bad.

Question 2: When Joe Internet is reporting an overclock, what is he using for his voltage number? Because the poo poo I see out there doesn't make sense at all based on my observations, even if I'm discounting the use of p95 AVX as a stress test.

Ultimately, conventional wisdom of a sub-1.4v Vcore doesn't seem possible for a daily driver to have perfect 5.1GHz stability on my chip, but I can't say that for certain until I figure out what the gently caress these voltages are.

Okay first off the min and max stuff, ignore that essentially. You want to be observing it while it's under load, look at the current value. You can't do testing and then come back to this after to look at it - you have to be watching it live. In some cases the maximum is going to be what you get under load but sometimes it isn't - you're seeing your voltage drop under load there in your top measurement but you didn't say which sensor that is from. The actual sensor is going to depend on your motherboard so google around trying to find out what sensor reported in hwinfo64 is the 'right one' for your motherboard. For me with a z390 Aorus Ultra (gigabyte) it's VR VOUT. This gives me the voltage from my voltage controller into the chip. My VID is reported at ~0.10v higher than my VR VOUT. A lot of this has to do with your LLC setting.

You have no idea how stable Joe Internet's overclock is - people will report poo poo that makes them look good so it's almost pointless to check individual numbers.

You're correct in thinking that you absolutely need to know where to get a good readout of your voltages before you go any farther. If you let us know what mobo you use maybe someone else can chime in.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Warmachine
Jan 30, 2012

I came here to laugh at you





VelociBacon posted:

Okay first off the min and max stuff, ignore that essentially. You want to be observing it while it's under load, look at the current value. You can't do testing and then come back to this after to look at it - you have to be watching it live. In some cases the maximum is going to be what you get under load but sometimes it isn't - you're seeing your voltage drop under load there in your top measurement but you didn't say which sensor that is from. The actual sensor is going to depend on your motherboard so google around trying to find out what sensor reported in hwinfo64 is the 'right one' for your motherboard. For me with a z390 Aorus Ultra (gigabyte) it's VR VOUT. This gives me the voltage from my voltage controller into the chip. My VID is reported at ~0.10v higher than my VR VOUT. A lot of this has to do with your LLC setting.

You have no idea how stable Joe Internet's overclock is - people will report poo poo that makes them look good so it's almost pointless to check individual numbers.

You're correct in thinking that you absolutely need to know where to get a good readout of your voltages before you go any farther. If you let us know what mobo you use maybe someone else can chime in.

Sorry, I thought about that after I posted but I wandered off to do some other research.

It's an ASUS Z490-I, so it doesn't have the VR VOUT sensor the Gigabyte boards have. Thus that min-max are are Vcore as reported by (assuming this is how I'm supposed to interpret this) the Nuvotron NCT6798D.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply