|
I have an i7-3820 with a Corsair Hydro H60 on it. It performs lovely at a 38x multiplier (stock is 36x), but I've been thinking of going for more. Should I just bump the multiplier or should I follow a guide for BCLK multiplier overclocking? I've seen one for pushing it up to a stable 4.625 GHz and it seems like it could be fun...
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 07:48 |
|
|
SpeedStep allows your processor to underclock itself to reduce power consumption while idling. It's generally recommended.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2015 09:32
|
|
|
Followed the guides in the second post about airflow, bumped the multiplier on my i7-3820 to 42, bumped the RAM to 1600 because I'm too poor to afford actual 1600, and now my computer's all like  and idling at 32 C.This thread rocks. e: Erm. Apparently my motherboard was running what turned out to be 1866 at 1333. I guess I'm going to go bump that up another notch.  e2: Uh, is this considered normal at all? Happened during a CPU benchmark. e3: It seems that Task Manager doesn't understand that just because your memory is outside of JEDEC spec, your entire system bus is not and it does not need to assume your CPU is in fact five loving gigahertz. Kazinsal fucked around with this message at 06:41 on Jul 21, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
BurritoJustice posted:So some dude managed to overclock a Skylake i3 using a motherboard mod. Using That dude's got most of hwbot's world records for massively parallel computation with dozens of different Xeons in multi-CPU configurations and stuff. He's gotten a 4770K to 6.8 GHz on LN2 and a Celeron 352 to just past 8 GHz on LN2. It does not surprise me at all that he figured out what to solder to unlock BCLK on Skylake, nor would it surprise me if he spent a ridiculous amount of money on boards to burn through to figure it out.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
I've heard really rare reports of people breaking 5 GHz on a 3820. I'm pretty pleased with 4.2 myself but apparently 4.625 is easily doable with a small voltage bump so I'm considering that. All hail the mighty BCLK strap!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
 Are you like, not using thermal paste or something?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Man you guys are sitting here nonchalantly breaking the 5 GHz barrier and I'm sitting on an i7-3820 that won't go above 4.2 GHz and an R9 290 that eats its graphics drivers if you so much as look at the voltage controls.  I hope my tax return doesn't suck.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
Anyone know offhand what the safe voltage for Sandy Bridge-E is? My i7-3820 is woefully underpowered for a brand new video card and won't go past 4.1 GHz on stock voltage, so I'm thinking it might be time to feed it volts until it can do 4.5 GHz stable. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
Cool, thanks. I'll give this a shot when I get home from work. e: Well'p, that was easy. I'll probably give it another 0.01V or so just to make sure it's where it needs to be for stability but hey, not bad. 
Kazinsal fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Mar 3, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
I believe VID is the stock/default voltage and Vcore is what you've set yourself.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
It should be noted that Nehalem is pretty much the only Core platform it's safe to crank the BCLK like that on. Anything newer, you've maybe got two or three MHz you can squeeze out of the BCLK before the system becomes really unstable due to the BCLK also being used for the PCIe lanes. And on SB-E and IB-E, you have the magic that is BCLK Strap overclocking, which changes your CPU clock formula to be BCLK * BCLK Strap * Multiplier.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
Something like 98% of all 8700Ks can hit 4.9 GHz on 1.35V. 75% can hit 5.0 GHz -- not sure about the voltage though. I've got my new 8700K build running happily at 4.9 and will fiddle with maybe hitting 5.0 tomorrow.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2017 13:41
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:Guess who's in the 2% and has one which can't? Sorry I missed this earlier. AVX is bad times and you should generally have a -2 or so AVX offset so that if you're running at 4.9 GHz all-core, you've got a 4.7 GHz AVX clock.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2018 14:04
|
|
|
Multi-core enhancements tends to shove a metric fucktonne (this is a scientific term, I assure you) of voltage where said fucktonne of voltage is not necessarily required. If you force an all-core turbo clock speed yourself and lower the voltages to wherever it's stable at you'll get better temperatures at the expense of spending more time on it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2018 21:36
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:Just to add to this, an easy way to do this while retaining c-state stuff is to just use a voltage offset. Just keep pushing it lower and play quick play or whatever in Overwatch to stress test it. headcase posted:Is there any reason to force an all core turbo vs letting Intel manage it? Yeah sorry I meant "synchronize all turbo clocks at 4.7 GHz or whatever so it doesn't step down to 4.3 GHz when it's using all six cores", not like "never not 4.7 GHz". Bad phrasing on my part. Kazinsal fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Feb 20, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2018 21:43
|
|
|
My 8700K at 4.9 GHz but with an AVX of 4.7 and dipping into that often enough that I'm considering just handing it more volts and an AVX offset of 0 does 570 single-core. I would not be surprised if it at a solid 5.0 GHz hit 600+ no problem.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2018 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 07:48 |
|
|
Akumos posted:
4.9 GHz all-core on the CPU is just fine yeah. GPU overclocking these days, especially with Pascal, isn't nearly as much of a big deal as it was five years ago. You should be able to get 5.0 GHz all-core stable if you put in an AVX offset of -2. That'll drop cores whose pipelines have AVX instructions in them to 4.8 GHz until the AVX instructions are out of the pipeline.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2018 04:09
|
|
