Looking for a new CPU mostly for MMOs

[soccerballtux]

Okay, if I want to go over 3.5GHZ I have to increas voltage right, is there any guide showing how much do I have to increase it or does anybody know or do I have to find out by myself?

go to 1.45v on the core to start with.
If you're using PhenomMSRTweaker it makes it easy to control the voltages and multiplers. You can bump them up one at a time while you're running Prime95 and usually it will fail before windows locks up, at which point you can either increase the voltage or decrease the multipliers.
Note that the voltage shown there is what the chip has default, not what it's currently set at in BIOS-- IE, if you've set the vcore to +0.1 in bios, then when you do +0.1v in PhenomMSRTweaker that's going to be +0.2 total.
Same with the CPU-NB voltage.

Also note that CPU-NB is different from "NB". You shouldn't need to overvolt the NB on the motherboard any-- just the CPU-NB.

Start by overclocking the cores to their max with a given voltage that keeps you at or below 63C. When you've got the cores to their max, you can start fiddling with the CPU-NB. This is a bit harder than the cores since you have to reboot to make frequency changes.
Even if you think you've got the cores to a stable frequency, downclock them back to stock speed for when you're testing the CPU-NB. Find a stable CPU-NB frequency (I was able to hit 2.6ghz @1.4v) by booting into windows and running your stability test app again, when you've got a stable cpu-nb clock your cores back up and test again-- higher core frequency will stress your CPU-NB [it's the 6MB L3 cache] more (you're pulling data from it faster) and it's not uncommon to need a slight voltage bump [when running with cores OC'd] above what it was stable at before [under stock core speeds]

 

[soccerballtux]

Okay, if I want to go over 3.5GHZ I have to increas voltage right, is there any guide showing how much do I have to increase it or does anybody know or do I have to find out by myself?

rule#1 is stay below 63C. I believe you can actually go higher, up to like 72C, but AMD's spec sheets say 63C so better safe than sorry, but that's usually plenty of headroom with a good cooler like yours.
rule#2 is stay below 1.55v on the cores.
Don't know about the L3cache/CPU-NB voltages, I am running 1.3v on my 965 and ran 1.4v on my 720BE-X3 but developed problems on it when it would get hot. It had a little flakiness to begin with though so...basically I think it's an outlier. Some people have been running up to 1.4v on the CPU-NB since these Phenom 2's came out and haven't reported problems.

 

[Betatest]

I think I am at 1.36 by default, should I really go straight to 1.45?

 

[soccerballtux]

I think I am at 1.36 by default, should I really go straight to 1.45?

Yeah that's fine. Just note it'll make a difference in temps. The heat generated is related to the speed that the transistors are flipping (frequency), and the voltage range over which they're switching. You'll probably reach a divergence point at around 1.47v and whatever frequency you can hit at that voltage, where more voltage gets you negligible faster frequencies. For example I can run 4ghz on my 965 @ 1.4v but going to 1.45v won't even get me to 4.1ghz.

 

[Betatest]

Okay, I was in the BIOS and I am not sure what to increase tbh, CPU Voltage Control is at AUTO, is this what I should mess with. At first I thought its NORMAL CPU VCORE but it is greyed out.

 

[soccerballtux]

Okay, I was in the BIOS and I am not sure what to increase tbh, CPU Voltage Control is at AUTO, is this what I should mess with. At first I thought its NORMAL CPU VCORE but it is greyed out.

yeah. There might be 2 settings like you change auto to manual, and then "NORMAL CPU VCORE" becomes not grayed out.

auto doesn't auto increase the vcore it just reads what the stock is for that CPU and sets it to that.
So whatever the stock voltage is, change it from auto to that voltage and then boot to windows.

 

[Betatest]

I changed something from auto to manual (lol, forgot) and it allowed me to change DRAM Voltage, NB Voltage etc.., but Normal CPU Voltage is still grayed out. I am sorry, but I raelly do not know what to change to.

 

[soccerballtux]

just fiddle with it the setting is there just gotta find it

 

[Betatest]

There any many things that can be changed from auto to manual, but I dont want screw it up somehow.

 

[Necc]

Try making screenshots so people can help you much easier.

 

[Betatest]

Okay, here it is http://i52.tinypic.com/rl9raa.jpg

 

[soccerballtux]

oh, change system voltage control to manual, you can tweak CPU Voltage Control?

 

[Betatest]

If I change System Voltage Control to Manual it does let me change everything, only Normal CPU VCore remains locked.

 

[soccerballtux]

If I change System Voltage Control to Manual it does let me change everything, only Normal CPU VCore remains locked.

that's because the CPU's normal voltage is 1.35v. It's displaying that for reference. You change CPU Voltage Control to be like +0.1 and you're at 1.35v+0.1.

 

[Betatest]

So, should I add 0.1 to get to 1.45?

Okay, its been done, just doing some OCCT tests and temps are at full load at about 58C, can I go to 3.6GHZ now?

 

[soccerballtux]

So, should I add 0.1 to get to 1.45?

Okay, its been done, just doing some OCCT tests and temps are at full load at about 58C, can I go to 3.6GHZ now?

up to you
I usually jump up by small increments and keep going until it fails within 30 seconds, then either give it more voltage or back off a little bit on the overclock and do stability test then.

 

[Betatest]

Okay, got it to 1.45 and 3.6GHZ, passed OCCT test, not sure if 6 minutes is enough to test the stability tho. Should I stay at 3.6 or should I go higher?

Full load 59 cpu and 60 cores.

I just dont want to run in to any problems, dunno if my PSU can handle all of it.

 

[soccerballtux]

Okay, got it to 1.45 and 3.6GHZ, passed OCCT test, not sure if 6 minutes is enough to test the stability tho. Should I stay at 3.6 or should I go higher?

Full load 59 cpu and 60 cores.

keep going until it fails then you back off and let it do the full 1hour stability test

 

[Betatest]

I am little worried about going above 3.5GHZ since I read this http://www.techspot.com/review/142-phenom2-overclocking/page7.html, the power consumption is massive.

 

[soccerballtux]

why is that a problme???

That's what phenomMSRTweaker is for. You set it to massively underclock and undervolt your CPU when you're not using it, and the idle numbers drop to below the stock idle numbers.

 

[Betatest]

I have no idea what this program does, but it allows you to overclock your PC from windows, is it save? Also, I am not sure about the CPU-Northbridge, I know I am being stupid and all asking these stupid questions, but can I get it higher without upping the voltage on it? I do not know, but I dont feel "save" with the voltage high.

 

[soccerballtux]

only way to find out if you can get the CPU-NB frequency higher is to try

if your computer locks up then it's not stable and you'll need more voltage.
As long as you keep cpu voltage < 1.55v and cpu-nb voltage <=1.4v and temps <65C you will be fine.
If your computer locks up (BSOD) no big deal, just reboot.

 

[EliteRetard]

I know somebody with an X3 720 (unlocked to quad) and a very similar MOBO...settings were:

CPU Clock Ratio 13x
CPU NorthBridge 9x
CPU Frequency 286
PCIE Clock Auto
HT Link Frequency x7
EPP Disabled
Memory Clock 4x

Voltage Control:
DRAM Auto (normal 1.6v)
NB Auto
NB PCIE Auto
CPU NB +2.5 (1.45v)
CPU Voltage +.175 (1.5v)

That gave him a 3.72GHz CPU 2.57GHz CPU-NB and 1144MHz RAM CAS7
He needed extra voltage because of the unlocked core, if your not dealing with that you probably wont need as much voltage to get similar results (or increase the CPU Frequency to 300 or something). Id actually reccomend staying under 1.5v on the CPU (not 1.55, due to heat/power usage) and 1.4 on the CPU-NB.

Edit: Oh and try to keep the HT Link Frequency at or below 2000. In this case the 286x7=2002MHz HT. If you used a 300 CPU Frequency youd probably want a 6x HT for 1800MHz.

If you used a 250 CPU Frequency you could do a 15x CPU (3.75GHz) CPU-NB 10x (2.5GHz) HT 8x (2000MHz) and Memory 4x (1000MHz) or 5.33x (1333MHz).

 

[GaiaHunter]

Do you konw what instructions does Intel have that AMD doesn't?

For example SSE4.1 and 4.2 and SSSE3 (4.1 and SSSE3 is present in Core 2, but core 2 has no L3$).

If this is the cause or something else is causing a bottleneck on Phenom II, I don't know, but something doesn't add up and surely isn't IPC.

 

[RussianSensation]

What you mean is Blizzard games are heavily optimized for core i architecture, probably making use of all instructions available for core i that are absent from both Phenom II and Core 2 architectures.

Can you provide evidence to support this? Every time Intel CPUs outperform AMD in CPU intensive games, we always hear a claim that the game is "Intel optimized" or "Core i optimized".

Can it be that Intel designed its CPUs to excel in this type of code/workload (i.e.. games)? Their architectures are simply better designed to excel in games. Similarly, Athlon 64 was far better optimized for such workloads than the Pentium 4 architecture was. No developer sat there and specifically coded games to take advantage of Athlon 64's architecture over Pentium 4. Games just ran better on Athlon 64 out of the gate since AMD's architecture at the time was far more efficient per clock than Netburst was, and AMD had superior integer and cache performance. Simply said, Athlon 64's architecture was optimized to perform better at certain workloads, such as games; it was not that games were optimized to run faster on Athlon 64 architecture.

Intel simply continues to improve the IPC and cache performance of their processors. In constract, AMD has done nothing of the sort since they launched Phenom I. It is no surprise then that the gap in performance in games has grown so large - after all Intel is 2 full generations ahead. In other words, Core i7/SB architectures are simply much more efficient at handling integer operations than the previous architectures.

Take a look at the changes in the architecture which they have made each generation -> Core 2 Duo/Q --> Core i7 --> SB. All these changes resulted in SB being 15-20&#37; faster per clock cycle than i5/i7 was and i7 itself was 20-25% faster per clock cycle than Core 2 Quad was. Overall, SB is now about 45-50% faster per clock (i.e., in IPC) vs. Core 2 Quad 65nm design from 2007. Usually games have a huge cache miss rate, but Intel worked on Nehalem and later on SB to ensure that their CPUs needed less clock cycles for some instructions, featured more execution/store units that helped for computing intensive applications (gaming included), and optimized those architectures to reduce cache misses as much as possible. During the same period of time, all AMD did was raise clock speeds and add more useless cores (for games) on what was already an outdated Phenom I architecture to begin with.

In fact, if you look at the performance of C2Q generation, it's severely lacking in Starcraft II.

In other words, the reason Intel's Nehalem/Lynnfield/Sandy Bridge CPUs perform much better than Phenom I/II and Core 2 Quad generation in games is because those CPUs have far superior cache performance/latency and far greater integer performance over those architectures. It has little to do with Blizzard games being "optimized" to run faster on Intel CPUs. It is Intel who optimized its architectures to run faster at these types of workloads.

The reason Phenom II is uncompetitive in games is because that architecture is hardly improved over the Athlon 64 design. Once Bulldozer ships with much improved integer performance and better cache design, it will be far faster in Starcraft 2 than Phenom II is today.