• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

SB Overclocking Thread

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
mclaren777 said:
Is this correct?

Stock 2600K: runs at 3.4GHz when it's idle and jumps to 3.8GHz when Turbo engages under load
OCed 2600K: runs at 3.4GHz when it's idle and jumps to OC speed when Turbo engages under load
Click to expand...

Overclocked 2600K : Idle's at 1600 and jumps to 4.6ghz when under full load.
 
1600 = 1.6GHz?

And what triggers Turbo Mode? Does the CPU have to be at/over 95% for a certain length of time or actually hit 100% or something else entirely?
 
Hey,

I set my BIOS to 100.0 BCLK (manual) and multiplier 46x. However, when I go into CPU-Z it shows that my BCLK is sub-80, like 73.9 or something like that. This even happens when I am running P95 or Linpack. I know that my board (P8P67) only allows me to lower it to 80 at the minimum. So, is this just a CPU-Z reporting error? In the Probe for AI Suite II it shows correctly that I'm running at 46x100.0, so which program is wrong?
 
mclaren777 said:
Is this correct?

Stock 2600K: runs at 3.4GHz when it's idle and jumps to 3.8GHz when Turbo engages under load
OCed 2600K: runs at 3.4GHz when it's idle and jumps to OC speed when Turbo engages under load
Click to expand...

You can set the turbo multiplier to whatever you want. I turned speed step off so it doesn't idle @ 1.6ghz.. for now at least.
 
HotDogHero said:
Hey,

I set my BIOS to 100.0 BCLK (manual) and multiplier 46x. However, when I go into CPU-Z it shows that my BCLK is sub-80, like 73.9 or something like that. This even happens when I am running P95 or Linpack. I know that my board (P8P67) only allows me to lower it to 80 at the minimum. So, is this just a CPU-Z reporting error? In the Probe for AI Suite II it shows correctly that I'm running at 46x100.0, so which program is wrong?
Click to expand...

Use this edition:

http://www.cpuid.com/news/36-cpuid_reviewer_kit_for_intel_sandy_bridge.html
 
Thanks!

And, does anyone think that 65~68C with Venomous X single fan config load (Prime 95) is hot? And, is 1.360Vcore about where I should be at when I'm at 4.6GHz?
 
HotDogHero said:
Hey,

I set my BIOS to 100.0 BCLK (manual) and multiplier 46x. However, when I go into CPU-Z it shows that my BCLK is sub-80, like 73.9 or something like that. This even happens when I am running P95 or Linpack. I know that my board (P8P67) only allows me to lower it to 80 at the minimum. So, is this just a CPU-Z reporting error? In the Probe for AI Suite II it shows correctly that I'm running at 46x100.0, so which program is wrong?
Click to expand...

Sounds like it might be throttling. What are temps like under load?
 
HotDogHero said:
Thanks!

And, does anyone think that 65~68C with Venomous X single fan config load (Prime 95) is hot? And, is 1.360Vcore about where I should be at when I'm at 4.6GHz?
Click to expand...

I have a beaten to all hell Scythe Mugen 2 on my rig and it only goes to 60c on one core. Everything else is between 55-58c. So I think it's a little hot.

1.36v on the 2500k? Sounds good.
 
mclaren777 said:
Is this correct?

Stock 2600K: runs at 3.4GHz when it's idle and jumps to 3.8GHz when Turbo engages under load
OCed 2600K: runs at 3.4GHz when it's idle and jumps to OC speed when Turbo engages under load
Click to expand...
That's Turbo overclocking. However, on Gigabyte boards you can disable Turbo completely. Doing that along with disabling EIST, C-states, etc. forces the multiplier to remain fixed (even at idle) at whatever you set it at.

I don't know if it's possible to disable Turbo on other boards. I'm pretty sure you can't on Intel's own boards.
 
I'm super confused now. Is there something I could read about the various speeds of Sandy Bridge? Apparently it's much more complex than I thought. This whole 1.6GHz thing is news to me.
 
mclaren777 said:
I'm super confused now. Is there something I could read about the various speeds of Sandy Bridge? Apparently it's much more complex than I thought. This whole 1.6GHz thing is news to me.
Click to expand...
The 1.6GHz thing is likely EIST (Enhanced Intel SpeedStep). The multiplier drops below the set multiplier at idle to save energy.

The confusion comes from the reviews. The majority of Sandy Bridge reviews I've seen were on Asus boards, along with a few MSI and Intel boards. If those boards don't have an option to disable Turbo, then by the sheer number of those reviews it would appear to the casual web-surfer that Turbo is the only way to overclock. This is apparently not the case.

Hopefully those boards that can only overclock via Turbo will get BIOS updates to allow fixed overclocking. In the meantime I'm going to go with a board that gives me full control, even if it means forgoing UEFI in the short term.

EDIT: looking at the Asus P8P67 Deluxe manual, it appears that Turbo can be disabled. From the reviews I read I got the impression that that option was not present at the time. That's good news.
 
Last edited:
The more I read the more I'm leaning towards leaving my 2600K completely stock.

There are just too many variables to worry about with OCing.
 
So you should disable turbo when overclocking? I want around 4.4/4.5. So I just disable the turbo, up the multiplier (and voltage) and that's it?
 
SB is easy,
raise multiple, add vcore.
MSI P67 gd55 2500K

Priming some at 5ghz 1.432v

jife3n.jpg

vrwnzm.jpg

2dahopl.jpg
 
If I had one not sure I would put 1.432v on it just yet...........
Anyway how about seeing some passmark details guys?
 
Oh my....

I wish i could do that with my i7 875K....

4.0ghz with 1.36v temps high 70's under load 😛

Cooler H70


I WANT SB!
 
Castiel said:
It's not as confusing as it sounds. Its so easy to overclock now.
Click to expand...

My assumption was that overclocking just raised the ceiling on what Turbo Mode could reach. I thought the CPU stayed at 3.4GHz until it was under sufficient load, then it would trigger Turbo. So my plan was to keep it entirely stock this year and then bump up the Turbo to 3.9 next spring. Then the following year raise it to 4.0 and so on (probably cap off at 4.4GHz in 2017).

But apparently this plan doesn't sound like it's going to work. :\
 
mclaren777 said:
My assumption was that overclocking just raised the ceiling on what Turbo Mode could reach. I thought the CPU stayed at 3.4GHz until it was under sufficient load, then it would trigger Turbo. So my plan was to keep it entirely stock this year and then bump up the Turbo to 3.9 next spring. Then the following year raise it to 4.0 and so on (probably cap off at 4.4GHz in 2017).

But apparently this plan doesn't sound like it's going to work. :\
Click to expand...

Turbo really only makes sense if you are leaving the processor at it's stock speed. If you are overclocking it to the max, "turbo" is useless since you are already at the processor's peak output.

Also, turbo reduces the number of effective cores in order to reach this elevated speed. Overclocking raises the frequency on *all* of the cores.
 
mclaren777 said:
My assumption was that overclocking just raised the ceiling on what Turbo Mode could reach. I thought the CPU stayed at 3.4GHz until it was under sufficient load, then it would trigger Turbo. So my plan was to keep it entirely stock this year and then bump up the Turbo to 3.9 next spring. Then the following year raise it to 4.0 and so on (probably cap off at 4.4GHz in 2017).

But apparently this plan doesn't sound like it's going to work. :\
Click to expand...

Sure it will. You can set the normal and turbo multiplier independently of each other. Say 3.6ghz normal / 4.8ghz turbo. Or no turbo at all and just leave it OC. Before I even booted it the 1st time I set the turbo to 4.2, and left the normal to stock 3.4
 
mnewsham said:
Well 1.38 or so was the highest proclaimed "safe" that i have seen.
Click to expand...

I feel like a lot of people on here (and other places as well) overclock more for bragging rights than for any sort of practicality. Frankly I see NO reason at all to risk destroying a processor just to get another 200-300mhz out of an already insanely fast processor.

I won't be going over 1.37 with mine when I get it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top