nvidia chipsets vs. intel chipsets

[Dakilla]

Hi,

I am a n00b to overclocking but I can safely say that I am currently HOOKED to this wonderful pastime/hobby/obsession. However, I have come across some problems and I am wondering whether anyone else has experienced similar problems using nvidia chipsets as opposed to intel ones.

My system:
Mobo: 790i ultra/asus striker II extreme
cpu: intel qx9650
Ram: ddr3/corsair/1333mhz - currently at 1300mhz (unlinked)
cooling: air (unsure as to brand)
gpu: 2 nvidia 9800gx2 (sli enabled)

I have managed after many efforts (and a lot of crashes) to oc the cpu to 3.9 mhz.

I have however had to decrease the FSB to 325 (1300) and increase the multiplier to 12 and unfortunately I also have had to increase the cpu voltage considerably to over 1.42 v. in the bios (which comes to about 1.37v-1.38v after vdrop in cpu-z), in order to make it stable. This voltage is over intel's recommended 1.3625v and also as a consequence the cpu produces a lot of heat under stress (70c-71c sometimes, especially under OCCT but not so much under Prime95).

This doesn't reflect what I have been reading in the forums about the qx9650.

A lot of people have managed to oc this baby to 4ghz on air cooling alone without any problems and without exceeding Intel's recommended voltage or heat limits.

I was wondering whether this is due to the 790i? Do Intel chipsets/mobos oc better than nvidia's and if indeed this is the case, why is this...err...the case?

Has anybody else experienced similar problems? Does anybody have any suggestions how to bring th vcore voltage down?


Thanks


P.S. I have increased the other mobo voltages as well (all except the memory) but this doesn't seem to change the fact that my cpu needs a lot of juice in order to remain stable.

 

[jaggerwild]

Hello Mr. Dakilla,
Welcome to the forum!
Want to go higher, you'll need better cooling or a better HSF for the CPU.
I'm on my first Intel chip set so couldn't really give you an honest view, though with Nvidia I had good results with OC on the CPU'S.

Also little note, do not feed the CPU more than 1.5 volts.

 

[Zap]

Welcome to the forums, Dakilla.

Originally posted by: Dakilla
I have managed after many efforts (and a lot of crashes) to oc the cpu to 3.9 mhz.
...
This doesn't reflect what I have been reading in the forums about the qx9650.

A lot of people have managed to oc this baby to 4ghz

How well your particular CPU overclocks is luck of the draw. Get two identical CPUs and with the same equipment they can overclock different from each other.

To remove the chipset from being a potential limitation (though it shouldn't) you just need to increase the multiplier.

I personally wouldn't increase voltage past 10% on my daily use machine, and no more than 15% on my gaming rigs. That's just my comfort level.

As jaggerwild suggested, perhaps get better CPU cooling. 70ºC+ is pretty warm for an overclocked CPU.

I would also suggest better case cooling, because your quad-SLI setup is dumping a huge amount of heat into the case.

 

[Budarow]

I wouldn't get too "hooked" on reaching for the stars with any OC. If you're 200-300MHz from the top (i.e, compared to the over-achiever OC types), it shouldn't make much difference in "real world" performance. Now bragging rights is an entirely different animal

 

[Dakilla]

Thanks for the replies guys.

I have since managed to achieve a stable-ish 4 ghz oc, using more voltage and by getting more heat, however I tend to agree with Budarow that the risk to my rig is just not worth it.

I am currently running a completely stable system at 3.83 Ghz with 1.36 v. and the temps do not exceed 66 degrees tops under stress. My risk-benefit analysis is telling me that for 0.17 Ghz (i.e. 4.3% increase in performance from 3.38 Ghz) is just not worth the trouble or the worry!