|
Twerk from Home posted:Thanks for all this. My temps overclocked on the Hyper 212 EVO are better than at stock clocks on the stock cooler. The stock cooler was letting it spend time at 75C, apparently? Shouldn't it be throttling to keep itself under 72? It had probably already stopped Turbo Boost at that point, yeah. Throttling below the base clock multiplier takes higher temps.
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:06 |
|
|
Factory Factory posted:It had probably already stopped Turbo Boost at that point, yeah. Throttling below the base clock multiplier takes higher temps. I had no idea about this. So you're saying that an aftermarket cooler on a modern Intel CPU with turbo modes will get performance improvements even if you don't overclock, because it can run in turbo mode for longer? I always assumed that a CPU cooler was just buying silence and the ability to overclock, and the stock cooler was fine if you were OK with stock clocks and whining noises.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Well... Yes and no. Yes because yeah, you would get a tiny clock bump with sustained turbo - like, 100 or 200 MHz - over the base frequency. No because 1) on a desktop chip, the difference between base frequency and max all-cores turbo is tiny (mobile chips it's much higher), 2) the chip may still throttle based on TDP even if the temperature is under control (but likely won't unless the integrated graphics are also in use), and 3) most overclocking-capable motherboards these days will affirmatively gently caress with the default Turbo behavior and force the chip to always run at the maximum turbo state under load, come hell or high water.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
EDIT : 3rd edit, done trying to get the technical details correct, if you really care follow the link I asked a question a couple pages back about overclocked servers. Turns out supermicro does sell overclocked servers, their Hyper Speed line. For some definition of overclocked. I'll be talking to their reps later this week because the technical details regarding exactly how these servers are set up is hugely conflicting. Chuu fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Nov 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
Chuu posted:EDIT : 3rd edit, done trying to get the technical details correct, if you really care follow the link Based on their comment that Hyperspeed increases performance of the CPU, memory, and PCIe it looks like they're doing BCLK overclocking on these machines. This also aligns with their stated performance increase of 12% which is about the max that you can get with BCLK overclocking before various components start freaking out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
Krailor posted:Based on their comment that Hyperspeed increases performance of the CPU, memory, and PCIe it looks like they're doing BCLK overclocking on these machines. This also aligns with their stated performance increase of 12% which is about the max that you can get with BCLK overclocking before various components start freaking out. Thanks for the info. Still haven't gotten the details directly from Supermicro though. I had a chance to talk to some HP folks today though, and asked about these servers. I didn't realize that the HP G9 servers could already lock in a minimum operating frequency up to the max turbo frequency. As for any other optimizations Supermicro might have made, they hinted that something is in the pipeline. So basically, if you go to the data centers right where exchanges have co-located matching engines, I'd say HP is the #1 brand of server you see. Now that these Supermicro servers are starting to win STAC benchmarks I assume they're going to be more popular which means HP/Dell might react. Which means in a year there's a reasonable chance you'll be able to buy an overclocked server from the vendor of your choice. I wonder how Intel feels about all of this. They were directly and heavily involved with the code that holds the STAC-A2 benchmark record which ran on one of these hyper-servers so there is some implicit acceptance of this practice. Someone there can't be happy about server vendors selling out-of-spec products though. Chuu fucked around with this message at 05:26 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
Crossposting from gpu thead, should have posted here first: Anyone else here pick up an Msi R9 270 (non x) from the tigerdirect sale for 99$? I just acquired one and have been trying to overclock it but have run into to some issues. Afterburner can change the core and memory but will not let me change voltage. I have read this is due to the card not allowing voltage regulation? I could get a voltage slider pulled up in gpu tweak from Asus but upon change voltage, gpuz reports no changes. So just changing the clocks right off the bat it will work ok when running the unreal heaven benchmark or furmark, but I either will get screen corruption or ati dll service exception if I run the power supply test out of occt. I read that this card had extreme power draw and was wondering if my overclocking my phenom II x6 1090t is causing the instability to the card? I have a 750w corsair psu that has pretty big amperage and supports a crossfile/sli setup. Has anyone else had any luck with theirs or run into the same issues?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Jawtramp posted:Crossposting from gpu thead, should have posted here first: The card does not run at its top clock speed all the time. It self-throttles and self-overclocks based on the load that's running. You will only see the effects of the voltage and clock rate sliders once you start an intensive program, e.g. Heaven or Furmark. Those crashing means your overclock isn't stable. You'll have to back it off until they (and any other 3D programs you run) don't crash. The card does not have "extreme power draw." 750W of power is plenty for your setup. Overclocking the CPU can harm stability in general, but if the CPU were the part causing problems you'd get Bluescreen crashes, not graphics problems. It might also be helpful to check the OP for a description of turbo boost behavior so you can understand what the card is doing already. tl;dr Your graphics overclock is too aggressive, back off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
I soft of figured this was the case but just wanted to double check. Thank you for the reply!
Jawtramp fucked around with this message at 12:13 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
I'm trying to overclock for the first time, but I think I must be doing something wrong. I have a G3258 and an ASRock z97 Pro 4 motherboard. I put my core voltage at 1.350 and I can only get windows to log in at 4.1 GHz. It's perfectly stable like that, the temperature will hit a max of 65, but it generally stays around 60 C while running prime 95. Is there some setting I'm missing to help me get up to 4.4-4.5 GHz like I was expecting? If my chip is just limited to 4.1 GHz that's okay, and I'll probably knock Vcore down so it'll run cooler. It was stable at 4.1 GHz with Vcore set to auto, but I'm not sure if I should leave it on auto. Thanks for the help!
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
TheCobraEffect posted:I'm trying to overclock for the first time, but I think I must be doing something wrong. I have a G3258 and an ASRock z97 Pro 4 motherboard. I put my core voltage at 1.350 and I can only get windows to log in at 4.1 GHz. It's perfectly stable like that, the temperature will hit a max of 65, but it generally stays around 60 C while running prime 95.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
Yeah, I have version 1.4 which it says is the latest. I'm trying to play with some of the setting but I'm not sure what to change.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
Did you adjust the voltage first? While 1.35 is not outrageous, it's still a sizable boost to stock, and for it to require that for 4.1GHz would be a horrendously awful chip (mine hits 4.6 at 1.275V, by comparison). I would try resetting the OC and starting over from stock voltage and bump up the OC. Make sure to manually set the ring bus / uncore at stock (32x) while you're testing CPU ratio/voltage, and move up the core ratio until you reach instability, then up voltage by small increments.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
Yeah, I changed the voltage first which was pretty stupid. I went back to stock and worked up from there. Stock was 3.2 GHz at 1.109V. I found that I'm stable at 4.3Ghz and 1.36V, but it takes 1.49V to be stable at 4.4Ghz. I think I just got a "bad" chip. It's still 1.1Ghz over stock, so I really can't complain too much. I had the uncore at 32x while I was testing, and now I'm trying to bump it up. I'm testing at 38x now, it bluescreened at 39. I have the uncore voltage set to auto, not sure if that's the best way to go. I'm going to keep testing, tomorrow I might post my settings to see if there's something I'm missing. I really just wanted to try out some overclocking on a chip that's cheap enough that I don't have to worry too much about frying it. Thanks for the help.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
So in response to my first post, it was the drivers. Once I had updated them (14.11.1) and installed a registry mod to increase power tune to 30%, I could get stable consistent clocks and I was able to run benchmarks and have the gpu load stay stable on 99% without any kind of dips. The MSI R9 270 overclocks quite well without being able to change voltage. I loving love it!
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 12:15
|
|
|
Are there any special screws or techniques I should be looking at if I want to try sandwiching a bunch of CLC radiators and fans together into a stack? I'm thinking I might just jam three rads between two fans and sue weather stripping to seal everything so the fans can push more effectively.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 14:56
|
|
|
You'd probably need some kind of custom long screws to make it work but IIRC people usually use long bolts and nuts to combine standard rads & thicker fans. There's also universal radiator plates and gaskets available that may help: http://www.sidewindercomputers.com/radiatorparts.html Performance-pcs is another good source that might have what you'd need.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
Wouldn't you run into issues of the fins not lining up if you tried to stack rads?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
With alternating fan/rad sets it'll work fine as long as they're not super restrictive, but you definitely don't want to just stick two rads directly together and you shouldn't do more than two.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
cisco privilege posted:You'd probably need some kind of custom long screws to make it work but IIRC people usually use long bolts and nuts to combine standard rads & thicker fans. My setup uses smaller screws, just not screwed through both fan mounts, only the one directly on the gasket/rad, Also, the fins on the 2 rads interior not aligning should not be a problem, as long as airflow is not badly affected. Hello, Another rad question, I picked up an EK 480 (4 X 120mm fan) Copper rad,(gave up on the motorbike rad for the moment,) I will make up a simple external rack for it and the pump to sit next to, or on top of my case. My question, Can anyone recommend a 5/12v fan speed controller with a single control for 4 fans with 3 pin connectors. to slip into a 5.25 or a floppy bay? I found a bunch of controllers with individual controls, but I need to supply the same current to 4 fans : grrrrr. Any ideas? staberind fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Finally got a Zalman heatsink in my case after that and EVO 212s were sold out everywhere. I have a G3258 with an AsRock Z97 Anniversary board. It seems I have a crappy chip compared to others, since I'm only really able to get 4.5ghz at 1.4V. Is 1.4V too much? I'm not sure but at max CPU running Prime95 on blend I'm getting 69-72c and running BF4 which uses 100% CPU, it'll get to 59-62c. This is my first OC so I want to make sure I'm not doing something dumb.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
CortezFantastic posted:Finally got a Zalman heatsink in my case after that and EVO 212s were sold out everywhere. I have a G3258 with an AsRock Z97 Anniversary board. It seems I have a crappy chip compared to others, since I'm only really able to get 4.5ghz at 1.4V. Is 1.4V too much? I'm not sure but at max CPU running Prime95 on blend I'm getting 69-72c and running BF4 which uses 100% CPU, it'll get to 59-62c. This is my first OC so I want to make sure I'm not doing something dumb. Yes, that voltage is quite a bit higher than you want long-term on a 22nm chip. I'd try and get down to 1.32Vish if you can.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:Yes, that voltage is quite a bit higher than you want long-term on a 22nm chip. I'd try and get down to 1.32Vish if you can. On the other hand it's $50 and has a three year warranty, I'd just as soon nuke the thing..
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:Yes, that voltage is quite a bit higher than you want long-term on a 22nm chip. I'd try and get down to 1.32Vish if you can. I must've really gotten a bad chip because I don't think I could get past 4.0ghz at 1.32V. Perhaps I am not doing something else right? Is there anything else I should check or increase?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
Is that Vcore (i.e. what CPU-Z reports) or just what's set in the BIOS? It's Vcore you want to keep at ~1.3V or lower.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
I turned it down to 4.2ghz at 1.3V. Although I will be probably upgrading in two years so it wouldn't be that big of a deal to keep it running that hot, I'd rather it be a bit more stable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
So, thanks to Dragon Age: Inquisition, I went and picked up a 4790K to replace my OCed G3258 as my "tide me over until ASUS releases a good mATX X99 board" setup (yes, I do want Haswell-E, and have legitimate uses for it, let's just skip the "you don't need X99" tangent). Also picked up a Maximus VII GENE, just in case I end up not going Haswell-E after all (due to laziness, or whatever) so I have a good MB. The number of OC settings in the ROG UEFI is actually quite daunting, so I just left everything at their auto settings with all-core synced Turbo mode (which means it'll reach 4.4 with all cores). This seemed to work fine for some gaming, but when I decided to see what kind of load temperatures I was getting, the system just rebooted after a couple minutes of Prime95 blend. I tested a few times, and it consistently would crash within 10 minutes. I noticed that CPU-Z was reporting the core voltage wrong (said it was over 1.8V), and switched to HWiNFO, where I found that it was hitting about 1.28V under load. Now, that's on the higher-end for Haswell, but not outrageously so (my G3258 + MSI Z97 PC Mate run at 4.6 @ 1.275V), so this seemed kind of weird. I then went in UEFI and changed to the default Turbo settings and ran Prime95 again, and it was at about 1.15V at 4GHz, and Prime95 ran for quite a while with no problems (I didn't have time to do any more testing before having to leave for work). Anyone know of any issues with ASUS Z97/ROG boards and instability with high voltages? I found the HardOCP review of the board included Kyle mentioning a similar issue, and based on what he said it seems to be a specifically Prime95 issue (he said AIDA64 had no issues), but I'm curious as to if anyone else have any experience with it. GokieKS fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
Whats the best way to go about overclocking my MSI GTX 970 Golden Edition? I was running Fire Strike testing my system out and I appear to only be able to get 1320MHz core clock speeds even with my fan speed at 100%. The temps were only getting to roughly 50C with 100% fan and 60C with default stock fan profile. In Far Cry 4 I'm doing 99% GPU Load, 95% TDP, 65C with 1440 MHz Core Clock. SlayVus fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Nov 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
I just got this chip since the G3258 wasn't going to let me play Far Cry 4 which I bought. I was hoping to wait until the next run of chips but I digress. Right now it runs at 26c on idle but when I turn on Prime95 on Small FFT it gets as hot as 68c which seems extremely hot considering I haven't even overclocked it yet. I have two 120mm, for input and out, along with a Zalman heatsink on the chip. I DID get cheap thermal paste on Amazon but I doubt it would be causing me issues since I used it on the G3258 with no issue, and I had that running at 69c OC'd to 4.4ghz. What should I be looking for? Is it possible I just have a really bad chip?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
CortezFantastic posted:I just got this chip since the G3258 wasn't going to let me play Far Cry 4 which I bought. I was hoping to wait until the next run of chips but I digress. Right now it runs at 26c on idle but when I turn on Prime95 on Small FFT it gets as hot as 68c which seems extremely hot considering I haven't even overclocked it yet. I have two 120mm, for input and out, along with a Zalman heatsink on the chip. I DID get cheap thermal paste on Amazon but I doubt it would be causing me issues since I used it on the G3258 with no issue, and I had that running at 69c OC'd to 4.4ghz. What CPU and what heatsink are you using?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
CortezFantastic posted:I just got this chip since the G3258 wasn't going to let me play Far Cry 4 which I bought. I was hoping to wait until the next run of chips but I digress. Right now it runs at 26c on idle but when I turn on Prime95 on Small FFT it gets as hot as 68c which seems extremely hot considering I haven't even overclocked it yet. I have two 120mm, for input and out, along with a Zalman heatsink on the chip. I DID get cheap thermal paste on Amazon but I doubt it would be causing me issues since I used it on the G3258 with no issue, and I had that running at 69c OC'd to 4.4ghz. Small FFT is not a good test of your cooler. It will make any chip run at ridiculous heat levels. It is not a realistic load at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
I'm pretty new to overclocking, but I bought the MSI PC Mate+G2358 bundle and thought I'd give it a try. I'm currently on stock cooling and running everything in a N400 coolmaster case. I read a couple guides and the going idea is that 100c is the limit on temps during a stress test, and I should be looking for something around 80-95 during an Prime95 test at most. My goal is to get the chip running at 4GHZ, which I read is a pretty reasonable goal for stock cooling. So I have the multiplier set to 40, and the Core and Ring volts set to 1.15v, it's stable at that level, but I hit 100c in Prime95, which is bad times, I guess? I tried to reduce it more and left it at stock (AUTO in the bios settings) but I'm still hitting 100c during a stress test. At stock I barely hit 60c even under a stress test. Did I just get a lovely chip? Or am missing something? I'm running Blend during the stress test. Double Edit: I've been experimenting some more and the sweet spot for booting at 4ghz seems to be around 1.143 core and 1.25 ring, but I'm still getting 100c at those settings. I feel like I'm missing something here, I've read about people booting at 4ghz with just 1.1 core. Nemesis Of Moles fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Nov 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
Heat is a HUGE problem there. 100 C is absolutely not acceptable. 80 C is, IMO, just on the irresponsible side of hot. Are you sure the cooler is mounted correctly and all the pushpins are pushed and locked? Even the stock cooler should be doing significantly better than that, given that it's a 50-ish watt chip stock.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:Heat is a HUGE problem there. 100 C is absolutely not acceptable. 80 C is, IMO, just on the irresponsible side of hot. Are you sure the cooler is mounted correctly and all the pushpins are pushed and locked? Even the stock cooler should be doing significantly better than that, given that it's a 50-ish watt chip stock. Yeah the more I fiddle the more certain I am that something isn't seated right. I'm gonna go buy some more thermal paste and reseat the cooler.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
Nemesis Of Moles posted:Yeah the more I fiddle the more certain I am that something isn't seated right. I'm gonna go buy some more thermal paste and reseat the cooler. Mine is pushing 4.4ghz at 1.28v and only gets to 65c in prime95. So you definitely have something seated wrong. They are ridiculously easy to overclock. If you plan on keeping it try getting an aftermarket cooler. Even just a 212evo will help immensely with the heat and can be had for ~30 bucks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Nemesis Of Moles posted:Yeah the more I fiddle the more certain I am that something isn't seated right. I'm gonna go buy some more thermal paste and reseat the cooler. Yeah you absolutely hosed up seating the stock cooler, look at the underside of the motherboard and you should see all four of these white plastic split tabs pushing through, with some black plastic pins pushing through the center of the split tabs to lock them in place. I've overclocked that combo with five different G3258 back when I was building PCs to sell to people and my worst chip still got to 4.3ghz @ 1.3v core and 80c prime blend.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
OK, reseated the cooling and reapplied thermal paste (maybe a little too liberally tbh) and now running stress tests, then inset multiplier to 40, core to 1 .18, ring at 1.17. I'm seeing some spikes at 74, mostly hovering around the high 60s. That's way better. I might clean off the thermal paste and reapply it later but this is already a world better. With some fiddling on the voltages I'm sure I can get that down a bit. Thanks guys. E: yep, an hour and a half of Prime95 and the highest things got was 76. Gonna tweak some more and try and get that down to a 70 max. E 2: Fudged the voltage a little lower, sitting at 1.17/1.16, clocked at 4ghz with temps spiking to 75. I'm pretty sure I'm bottlenecked by my overzealous application of thermal paste, but I can live with this, for now at least. Nemesis Of Moles fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
I upgraded my FX 4350 with an FX9590 but this is still terrible, is the 4790K a good cpu for overclocking ? I don't want to go X99 because I don't want to buy DDR4. I have no experience with intel since the pentium 4
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
Sh4 posted:I upgraded my FX 4350 with an FX9590 but this is still terrible, is the 4790K a good cpu for overclocking ? I don't want to go X99 because I don't want to buy DDR4. Yeah it's good for overclocking. Depending on your uses the i5-4690K might be a better choice; it depends if you have use for hyperthreading with tasks that are highly multithreaded like video rendering, 3d modelling and the like. For gaming the quad core i5 is the best value for money since most games only have 1-3 threads. X99 isn't worthwhile for most people. Take a look at the OP in the PC Building and Parts Picking Megathread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:06 |
|
|
This machine is just for 1080p gaming. Adding an SSD and a 970 around Xmas. If I'm in danger of a bottleneck, I'd like to overclock my cpu to ~3.6 Ghz, but my case won't fit a Hyper 212. Will a Vortex Plus suffice? If so, will it fit with my stupid RAM? Current Specs: CPU: Intel Core i5-750 Lynnfield Quad-Core 2.66GHz LGA 1156 Mobo: GIGABYTE GA-P55A-UD3 Memory: Corsair Vengeance Blu 16GB (4x4GB) PC3-12800 1600mHz DDR3 Video Card: EVGA GTX 285 Case: Corsair SPEC-03 Power Supply: Rosewill Capstone-750 80 Plus Gold HDD: WD Blue WD6400AAKS 640GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5"
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 07:03
|
|
