Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > CPUs and Overclocking

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2014
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-04-2013, 01:01 AM   #1
dragantoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 609
Default New to overclocking

Hi, I'm brand new to the overclocking world (intel anyways), just upgraded from an h77 mobo, stock cooler and a pentium g860 to an asrock z75, 3570k and zalman 135mm max-r. I just started overclocking with offsets because my mobo doesn't support manual vcore settings and this was my first stable oc (if it's stable)

I ran prime95 large fft torture test for 20 minutes when I validated this, the highest temp was 58 C on core #2. So, can you tell me how I did and what I can do to get it to the magic 4.5 (if I can)
also, it may be a dumb question but it mystifies me that it says my ram speed is 666.7 mhz when I set it all to 1600 mhz in the bios. does anyone know what is happening?
__________________
Rig; Xeon L5639 @ 4ghz
x58 Sabertooth
8gb 2000 mhz RAM
force gt ssd
GTX 660 ti sli (1 asus dcu2, 1 evga sc)
modded HAF XB
dragantoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 01:27 PM   #2
radu_matei_2007
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 50
Default

go to BIOS and then increase the voltage at 1.2 (1.5 max on air) and the multiplier to 42-48...
radu_matei_2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 01:59 PM   #3
dragantoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 609
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by radu_matei_2007 View Post
go to BIOS and then increase the voltage at 1.2 (1.5 max on air) and the multiplier to 42-48...
you can't increase voltage on this board you can only use offsets
__________________
Rig; Xeon L5639 @ 4ghz
x58 Sabertooth
8gb 2000 mhz RAM
force gt ssd
GTX 660 ti sli (1 asus dcu2, 1 evga sc)
modded HAF XB
dragantoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 02:17 PM   #4
DooKey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 765
Default

Your RAM is running at 1333 and it sounds like you may have set a RAM multiplier too low. Whatever your offset is currently try adding an additional .05 to .1 to it and set your cpu multi for 45.
DooKey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 02:33 PM   #5
dragantoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 609
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DooKey View Post
Your RAM is running at 1333 and it sounds like you may have set a RAM multiplier too low. Whatever your offset is currently try adding an additional .05 to .1 to it and set your cpu multi for 45.
alright I got my cpu to 4.5 thanks! however my ram in all other applications says it's 1600 mhz, so what is happening?
__________________
Rig; Xeon L5639 @ 4ghz
x58 Sabertooth
8gb 2000 mhz RAM
force gt ssd
GTX 660 ti sli (1 asus dcu2, 1 evga sc)
modded HAF XB
dragantoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 02:54 PM   #6
dragantoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 609
Default

Alright I have fixed my ram settings, turns out I have to save a profile with them, here are my results
temps never went above 66 C
thanks for helping XD
__________________
Rig; Xeon L5639 @ 4ghz
x58 Sabertooth
8gb 2000 mhz RAM
force gt ssd
GTX 660 ti sli (1 asus dcu2, 1 evga sc)
modded HAF XB
dragantoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 04:08 PM   #7
Galatian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 311
Default

Hey,

I'm doing a very similar overclock on my ASUS P8Z77-V LK and Intel i5-3570K on Air. It seems to be very confusing to find one reliable source on how to overclock correctly. Some people say use a fixed vcore, some say this will hurt the processor and better use offset. Then there are motherboard manufactures that implement features only to a certain extend.

Right now I'm running my Core i5 on a mild overclock with 4,5 Ghz, using an offset of +0,100V. My VID is 1,1759V and CPU-Z shows a cVoltage of 1,152V under load.

So far it passed 20 maximum IBT runs 12 hours of small FTT in prime95 and is still going on the blend test (7 hours so far).

My question is: Is it better to use offset or manual vcore?
Galatian is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 05:43 PM   #8
dragantoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 609
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galatian View Post
Hey,

I'm doing a very similar overclock on my ASUS P8Z77-V LK and Intel i5-3570K on Air. It seems to be very confusing to find one reliable source on how to overclock correctly. Some people say use a fixed vcore, some say this will hurt the processor and better use offset. Then there are motherboard manufactures that implement features only to a certain extend.

Right now I'm running my Core i5 on a mild overclock with 4,5 Ghz, using an offset of +0,100V. My VID is 1,1759V and CPU-Z shows a cVoltage of 1,152V under load.

So far it passed 20 maximum IBT runs 12 hours of small FTT in prime95 and is still going on the blend test (7 hours so far).

My question is: Is it better to use offset or manual vcore?
it's better to use offset but easier to use manual vcore, either way it won't damage your cpu
__________________
Rig; Xeon L5639 @ 4ghz
x58 Sabertooth
8gb 2000 mhz RAM
force gt ssd
GTX 660 ti sli (1 asus dcu2, 1 evga sc)
modded HAF XB
dragantoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 06:23 PM   #9
coffeejunkee
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,138
Default

For a regular 24/7 overclock I think it's better to use offset vcore. I'm pretty sure it's better for the cpu (no need to run light loads at much higher voltage than required) and it's also better for the mobo's vrm circuitry. I also haven't experienced any instability due to offset and the value I need is the same as when using fixed vcore.

If it really matters is another question. Setting vcore by offset is still relatively new so for years the only way was to set a fixed vcore. Many people ran (and still run) overclocks at fixed vcore for years without problems. It might be the difference between 10 and 15 years. On the other hand, degradation is a well known phenomenon and it would be interesting to see if offset vcore slows down this process. It probably does but would be hard to test. You'd need like at least 100 cpu's, 50 at fixed and 50 at offset running for years.

Apart from that it also saves power, although C3/C6 states work regardless of fixed or offset vcore and these are the ones that lower idle power the most. But there might be a point where you have to disable them when clocking higher and then the vcore dropping in idle really helps.

I myself don't find using offset hard at all, just press + if unstable. For the LN2 guys it's probably better to use fixed vcore. They usually don't care about longevity too much.
coffeejunkee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 07:32 PM   #10
Idontcare
Administrator
Elite Member
 
Idontcare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: 台北市
Posts: 20,491
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coffeejunkee View Post
For a regular 24/7 overclock I think it's better to use offset vcore. I'm pretty sure it's better for the cpu (no need to run light loads at much higher voltage than required) and it's also better for the mobo's vrm circuitry. I also haven't experienced any instability due to offset and the value I need is the same as when using fixed vcore.

If it really matters is another question. Setting vcore by offset is still relatively new so for years the only way was to set a fixed vcore. Many people ran (and still run) overclocks at fixed vcore for years without problems. It might be the difference between 10 and 15 years. On the other hand, degradation is a well known phenomenon and it would be interesting to see if offset vcore slows down this process. It probably does but would be hard to test. You'd need like at least 100 cpu's, 50 at fixed and 50 at offset running for years.

Apart from that it also saves power, although C3/C6 states work regardless of fixed or offset vcore and these are the ones that lower idle power the most. But there might be a point where you have to disable them when clocking higher and then the vcore dropping in idle really helps.

I myself don't find using offset hard at all, just press + if unstable. For the LN2 guys it's probably better to use fixed vcore. They usually don't care about longevity too much.
IMO the differences are largely academic, regardless which method we use the chances of us actually keeping the CPU long enough to reach the end of its life are fairly remote.
Idontcare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 11:40 AM   #11
Galatian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 311
Default

I'm really sorry that I'm hijacking this thread, but I really didn't want to open a new one as I guess questions like this are asked a lot around here:

I finished a 26 hour run of blend test with prime95 and 20 maximum tests with IntelBurnTest. I also let my computer run through a few rounds of Heaven Benchmark. I guess I can consider my CPU stable enough now. The only thing I ever changed was offset which I increased to +0,100V. Temperature max out at 78C in IBT but more like 72C with prime95.

I have read in many threads that I would need to increase the CPU PLL and the power phase control and the cpu current capability. I did not. It is set on regular. Is this good or bad? My understanding is this is a rather good thing, because this would be how Intel "wanted" it in the first place right?

Now that I have a stable overclock I wanted to go further. For some reason I can increase the multiplier within my bios, but it will still max out at 4,5 Ghz. Is this because of EIST or is my motherboard just not supporting higher multipliers? I'm running a P8Z77 V-LK so not the most expensive one, but since this is a gaming rig I really didn't need any fancy features. I'm probably just missing something

Last edited by Galatian; 01-07-2013 at 02:06 PM.
Galatian is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 02:38 PM   #12
dragantoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 609
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galatian View Post
I'm really sorry that I'm hijacking this thread, but I really didn't want to open a new one as I guess questions like this are asked a lot around here:

I finished a 26 hour run of blend test with prime95 and 20 maximum tests with IntelBurnTest. I also let my computer run through a few rounds of Heaven Benchmark. I guess I can consider my CPU stable enough now. The only thing I ever changed was offset which I increased to +0,100V. Temperature max out at 78C in IBT but more like 72C with prime95.

I have read in many threads that I would need to increase the CPU PLL and the power phase control and the cpu current capability. I did not. It is set on regular. Is this good or bad? My understanding is this is a rather good thing, because this would be how Intel "wanted" it in the first place right?

Now that I have a stable overclock I wanted to go further. For some reason I can increase the multiplier within my bios, but it will still max out at 4,5 Ghz. Is this because of EIST or is my motherboard just not supporting higher multipliers? I'm running a P8Z77 V-LK so not the most expensive one, but since this is a gaming rig I really didn't need any fancy features. I'm probably just missing something
My multiplier also will not go past 45, but since it's not a great motherboard (well it is for the price) I wouldn't have tried going any further anyways. In your case, you cpu is running a little hot, what are you using for cooling and what is your voltage at during prime95? because the highest I've ever seen mine go was 66 C running prime95, but I'm running a pretty good cooler.
__________________
Rig; Xeon L5639 @ 4ghz
x58 Sabertooth
8gb 2000 mhz RAM
force gt ssd
GTX 660 ti sli (1 asus dcu2, 1 evga sc)
modded HAF XB
dragantoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 05:27 PM   #13
Galatian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 311
Default

Actually it is only one core that get's hot...the delta between the other cores is around 5C...I guess it is the "bad" core. In fact that core was also the one that would produce errors first in prime95 when I had unstable offset settings. My cooler is not the best though - it's the Noctua recommended in the midrange buyers guide here at anandtech. I guess with a few more case coolers I can actually decrease the temperature, but what's the point? It seems like I can't get above 4,5 Ghz anyway and I will never reach 70C on games!

This is my first custom PC built and I really never considered overclocking...I guess I tasted blood though...next built I do I know what to get when I really want to seriously overclock ;-)
Galatian is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 10:42 PM   #14
dragantoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 609
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galatian View Post
Actually it is only one core that get's hot...the delta between the other cores is around 5C...I guess it is the "bad" core. In fact that core was also the one that would produce errors first in prime95 when I had unstable offset settings. My cooler is not the best though - it's the Noctua recommended in the midrange buyers guide here at anandtech. I guess with a few more case coolers I can actually decrease the temperature, but what's the point? It seems like I can't get above 4,5 Ghz anyway and I will never reach 70C on games!

This is my first custom PC built and I really never considered overclocking...I guess I tasted blood though...next built I do I know what to get when I really want to seriously overclock ;-)
lol we are in very similar situations then, I actually noticed my #2 core gets hotter than the rest
__________________
Rig; Xeon L5639 @ 4ghz
x58 Sabertooth
8gb 2000 mhz RAM
force gt ssd
GTX 660 ti sli (1 asus dcu2, 1 evga sc)
modded HAF XB
dragantoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2013, 10:33 AM   #15
Galatian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 311
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragantoe View Post
lol we are in very similar situations then, I actually noticed my #2 core gets hotter than the rest
With your first physical core being #0? Then either this is just a coincidence or the same batch.

Is this now affirmative, that the Motherboard restricts the multiplier? Should't this be stated prior of purchasing the motherboard or this considered normal practice?
Galatian is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2013, 04:17 PM   #16
dragantoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 609
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galatian View Post
With your first physical core being #0? Then either this is just a coincidence or the same batch.

Is this now affirmative, that the Motherboard restricts the multiplier? Should't this be stated prior of purchasing the motherboard or this considered normal practice?
i really don't know but I hope so lol
__________________
Rig; Xeon L5639 @ 4ghz
x58 Sabertooth
8gb 2000 mhz RAM
force gt ssd
GTX 660 ti sli (1 asus dcu2, 1 evga sc)
modded HAF XB
dragantoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2013, 04:54 AM   #17
Vectronic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 489
Default

Regarding the hottest core... I've noticed on mine that the higher the overclock, the higher the core number becomes the hottest.

< 4.0 Core 1 is hottest
4.0 to 4.4 Core 2 is hottest
> 4.4 Core 3 is hottest

Haven't seen #4 become the hottest yet, although once I get over 4.6 all temperatures become very close and the hottest is a bit random.
Vectronic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2013, 10:43 PM   #18
happyfella
Junior Member
 
happyfella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare View Post
IMO the differences are largely academic, regardless which method we use the chances of us actually keeping the CPU long enough to reach the end of its life are fairly remote.
Bingo!
happyfella is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.