|
Vcore issue, give it a little more. You might have to back off a bit if you can't get it stable.
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2012 06:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 06:37 |
|
|
Its thermal performance will get slightly better, yeah. No more than 5C, probably less.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2012 07:36
|
|
|
You will very slightly increase the rate of normal wear and tear. The card will still last much longer than its useful lifetime.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2012 01:01
|
|
|
Since it's an Asus board, the Turbo TDP settings are almost definitely already adjusted. While you're watching HWiNFO, if it only switches between 4.3 GHz and 1.6 GHz with no steps in between, then you don't need to do anything.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2012 16:55
|
|
|
I am exceptionally glad you mentioned that, because I just flashed to 2301 and forgot to re-overclock. I'm running at *gasp* stock!!!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2012 19:17
|
|
|
Well, that's a bit of a bummer, but it's no TweakTown numbers. They had enormous temperatures in their pre-release tests, so much that I've been skeptical of the results. But it does look like IB may indeed hit a wall sooner than SB. In context, it's still crazy fast and it still overclocks 33% - not bad for a chip with a brand new transistor tech.  overclocks should be entirely unaffected; combine that with the IGP boosts and Lucid MVP on 7-series motherboards, and it's still a good choice for a high-end platform. Plus hey, maybe a new stepping down the line will clock even better. But a compelling upgrade from existing SNB machines it is not.Huge surprise, right? It's not like Wolfdale compelled Conroe owners to dump their systems, or Westfield from Bloomfield.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2012 20:06
|
|
|
Is that VID or Vcore, do you have any load-line calibration enabled, and are you using the CPU at 100% all the time, like for Folding@Home or constant video transcodes?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2012 14:00
|
|
|
Load-line calibration is fiddling with the VRM so that VID = Vcore. Without LLC, VID is the maximum possible voltage, not the current actual voltage (which Vcore is), but if you enable LLC and your Vcore/VID are ~1.38V, you're actually getting spikes of significantly higher voltage, which is bad. Being sure whether it's Vcore or VID is also important if you don't have LLC enabled, as a Vcore of 1.38V with no LLC implies a higher VID, which means both spikes of higher voltage (bad) and Vcore above 1.38V on non-stress-test loads (bad). On the other hand, if it's the VID that Not using the CPU at full bore all of the time means the chip may well absorb any of this punishment for a good while, especially if it's cooled well. So it's not cause for instant alarm. But if you expect the system to last a good five years and the voltage is a bit higher than it should be, you would do well to cut back on volts a little.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2012 14:31
|
|
|
It'll be sufficient for SOME kind of overclocking for sure, and likely a bit better than the same combo on a 2500K (which, for the record, would be ~4.2 GHz for sure, 4.5 GHz safe if you're moderately lucky). The Pro would be for if you want to make sure that your chip is your limit, not your motherboard, and/or you want to minimize heat around the processor socket.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2012 08:48
|
|
|
IBT isn't representative of a standard 100% load, and it's okay for it to be a little higher than normal. Test with Prime95 or an actual video render - if that yields 72C or below, it's fine.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2012 00:09
|
|
|
This version? You can just slide the fan up and down the heatsink. If you still have the other bracket set, you could also buy an inexpensive second fan and stick it on the heatsink in a push-pull configuration. This will buy you a few more degrees of cooling (3-7 C on my i5-2500K build).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2012 02:14
|
|
|
I was just reading that and was about to post it. For those interested, the links section as a forum post on the relationship between voltage, frequency, and power consumption relevant to understanding what's going on with IVB. Updating the OP is gonna be fun... THE NOISY KILLER RETURNS.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2012 18:20
|
|
|
More than likely a 1.38Vcore uses a VID around that 1.44V mark, hence the confusion. I have to wonder why you would do single-core turbo at all, though; if the cores are stable at 5GHz at a reasonable voltage, why not run them there all the time? And if you're using an unreasonable voltage to push them that high, why do it at all?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2012 19:57
|
|
|
EdEddnEddy posted:Now I have been meaning to ask about that. Is the VID what I belive shows above the CPU load within the sensor panel of HWInfo? If so, it usually shows a 1.357 max (or close to it) number with the Vcore being the one that goes above that. As I am not at my comp right now I cannot fully see what I am talking about.  Vcore/VID correlation would be more sensible if I were running more than a web browser and background tasks or if I lowered the sensor page's update interval. quote:Also with the turbo method, I was able to do it great on a 2600K with a lower vcore requrirement. (I cannot fully remember, but I think it was something pretty drat low like 1.29 or 1.32vcore max) and the voltage didn't have to increase from the base. My theory was that since most apps/games at the time didn't use 4 cores, that the freq could bump up with i7's turbo for the programs that use less cores. If a app can use all 4 then hell 4.5 should be enough. But a single threaded app using 5Ghz should also give it a pretty good push and since it is only 1 core being used to max. That system has been running like that for over a year now and is 24/7 stable with the guy playing BF3 pretty much daily. This makes sense only if you are limited by heat. An i7-2600K is not limited by heat with a reasonable cooling setup. It's not like the same core turbos to 5GHz each time; if all cores can go to 5 GHz and be stable, then you are pretty much always better off letting them all turbo to 5 GHz every time they can turbo.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2012 20:44
|
|
|
Vdroop still exists. If you've turned on Load-Line Calibration and cranked it up, you're overcompensating for Vdroop.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2012 22:59
|
|
|
The hexcore CPUs generally don't get as fast as easily as the LGA1155 parts. For one, the i5-2500K and i7-2600K are top-binned Sandy Bridge dies, where LGA2011 enthusiast parts are harvested from a much smaller production run of Xeon parts; they're the lowest binned parts. And then, once you're overclocking, you have to get lucky with six cores instead of four. It's just that much harder to get lucky with your part. I wouldn't stress overmuch. 6x4.5 GHz is still pretty beastly.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2012 04:19
|
|
|
 IVY BRIDGE!!! Ivy Bridge overclocking will be primarily limited by heat, the NOISY KILLER, rather than voltage or or the chip's natural frequency wall. The highest-rated Tcase_max is unchanged from Sandy Bridge at 72.6 C @ 95W, so this should be your target per-core temperature in Prime95. If you want to be extra-cautious, Tcase_max for the rated 77W TDP is 67.4 C. Thus the name of the game is "How much can I get without breaking the temperature limit?" Usually this is ~4.5 GHz at a Vcore of between 1.15V and 1.25V. After 1.25V, you rapidly get into diminishing returns and quickly-increasing power dissipation and heat. If you have ridiculous cooling that can handle these temperatures, you still may not find your frequency wall all that different from Sandy Bridge. That's life. To break even with a 4.5 GHz IVB setup Bridge setup, on average, you need Sandy Bridge running at a bit over 4.7 GHz. Otherwise, the Sandy Bridge section of the OP applies. Updates to the OP proper will happen when the GPU thread OP is done.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2012 18:18
|
|
|
Part of the spirit of this thread derives from the system building thread's push for price/performance sweet spots. Spending an extra $30-$60 on your CPU cooler has a payoff, but in practice it gains you less than 10% clocks. That's not so hot a return on investment, you know? Plus we have yet to find out what kind of voltage tolerances Ivy Bridge has. It looks like 1.35+ V is necessary for nudging against 5 GHz, and that could well be over the 24/7 safe limit for a 22nm process.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2012 19:02
|
|
|
4+1+1 means 4 for CPU, 1 for IGP, 1 for RAM. Similarly, 8+2 is 8 for CPU, 2 for RAM, and 8+2+2 is 8 CPU, 2 IGP, 2 RAM. The order may vary, but CPU phases almost always comes first. Fewer phases *should* matter less for Ivy Bridge, but there's no data to back that up, currently. While it's true that power dissipation increases with the square of voltage, there are a ton of reasons why you can't just plug in your voltage increase and say "There, that's how much my VRM needs to handle." There are a ton of factors that make power dissipation vary wildly, from things the engineers controlled when they were designing chips and VRMs to local factors like ambient temperature, case airflow, dust buildup, and what specific type of workload you are using Besides that, it's more than fine to use a Hyper 212 EVO for 110W; they're designed to work on 130W LGA 1366/2011 chips (at stock). I'll tell you right now, I just ran IBT on my system: * i5-2500K (95W TDP) 4.6 GHz @ 1.288V, offset +0.055 * Hyper 212+ with 800 RPM Scythe Slipstream for push-pull - about equivalent cooling to an EVO when both are at full speed * 120W heat dissipation as measured by the CPU itself * 73 C package temperature Equivalent average performance on an IVB system, assuming a chip identical to AnandTech's sample, would be 4.4 GHz @ ~1.05V, and the crappy cooler they used for the test still kept it below 65C in OCCT/Linpack. Believe you me, a Hyper 212 EVO will do fine. I understand that it's alluring to see a chip not yet at its wall, if only your cooling was a little bit better. But it's always been the case that throwing money at overclocking can get tiny-bit-better results. At some point, you have to ask yourself whether more noise or another $50 is worth the next 100 MHz.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2012 10:01
|
|
|
ComWalk posted:Your OP mentions 4 phase power being enough for moderate Sandy Bridge overclocking -- does that include the low-effort 4.2/4.3ghz overclocks, or does it tend to hit a ceiling before that? Yes, it includes those overclocks. An extra GHz is practically guaranteed. I think only once have we (i.e. goons) ever seen a CPU/board combination stumble at 43x over 42x, and a new board pushed the CPU higher just fine. A chip like mine that needs such a low offset to reach its wall would probably be able to fully clock on a 4-phase VRM, too. My last one (which burned out with a sudden motherboard failure) needed more volts for the same speed, but it actually hit 5 GHz at 1.4V. So there is some element of luck involved.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2012 18:06
|
|
|
E: Oh, iGPU. No.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2012 20:05
|
|
|
Yeah, but it's still coming to market. Maybe China only, though. Also, I did not know this, Zotac and Sapphire are owned by the same holding company. That may well be why Zotac is nVidia only, and Sapphire is AMD only.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2012 02:15
|
|
|
After your OS is patched and stable. Technically, you can do it beforehand if you have stress testing programs on a LiveCD, but that's pretty hard to arrange. You don't want to risk instability while you're patching, or you could severely gently caress up your OS install. You also don't want any unpatched-software crashes messing with figuring out whether the hardware is stable or not. An overclock is one you'll still want to stability test in a perfect world, but it should also have an excellent chance to just work. And you can always set an easy overclock now and tweak later.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2012 22:49
|
|
|
Voltage shouldn't be increasing at load; it should be decreasing. Do you have LLC pumped up to max or something?
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2012 00:40
|
|
|
Yep. Temps willing, I'd feel safe up to 1.3V no questions pending word from Intel. We may never get that word, though; we only got a hard, fast number with Sandy Bridge because the VID was spec'd to 1.5V, yet chips burned out really fast at that voltage, prompting Intel to clarify.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2012 06:32
|
|
|
Economic Sinkhole posted:Which sensors should I be paying attention to? I am trying to overclock my 3750K with an Asus P8Z77-V Pro. HWiNFO lists a temp for each core, CPU package and a under Nuvoton NCT6779D it also lists CPU, often much lower than other temps given. 
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2012 06:54
|
|
|
EIST-type jumps aside (from a low-power state ~1.00V to load), the way Vdroop works, a more intense load should result in a lower Vcore than a less intense load (e.g. IBT is more intense than Prime95). If the Vcore goes up instead of down, that means something is counteracting Vdroop, at that something is LLC. For example, I have LLC completely disabled on my board, and I Prime95 at 1.366V VID and 1.32 +/- .08 Vcore. IBT has the same VID, but 1.312V Vcore flat.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2012 06:48
|
|
|
zenintrude posted:am I going to be able to OC using this as easily/stably as the ASUS boards That particular board has a weaker VRM design. Overclocker-type boards are the -GDxx models. With it, you may have to settle for a lower frequency, but maybe also not if you're overclocking Ivy Bridge and end up temperature-limited. quote:and is there a good tutorial for its BIOS I should look at? I dunno. Google one? I tried to stay away from BIOS tutorials when writing the OP because most of them would include details that were awful, like "use manual voltage, set it to 1.4V, and crank the CPU as high as you can go," "change the BCLK," or "disable every C-state."
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2012 18:53
|
|
|
Actually, you can get pretty darn far leaving the voltage at stock. I think AnandTech's sample hit 4.4 GHz at the default 1.05V Vcore. I would not worry in the slightest up to 1.1V, and I personally would feel absolutely safe at 1.25V, maybe 1.3V. Hell, AnandTech even hit 3.9 GHz undervolting to 0.90V, the lowest they could go. As for reasonable temps, that's published in specs: the highest rated TDP is 72.6 C at 95W, same as SNB. If you want to be cautious, 77W TDPs are rated for more like 68 C. This is in the context of maximum desired sustained package temperature, Tcase. Factory Factory fucked around with this message at 19:16 on May 3, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 3, 2012 19:14
|
|
|
I'd give the current board a shot. An Asus -LK board would not be better. I'd only pick the GD55 if you are getting instability around 4.4 GHz and/or need a Vcore over 1.2V, and even then it might not make a difference. Ivy Bridge uses less power than Sandy Bridge, so its VRM needs should be lower.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2012 20:12
|
|
|
Agreed posted:Power delivery adjustments in the VRM phases happen at between 300mhz and 500mhz for Asus Intel boards, for example. Y'know, actually...  That's AI Suite for Z77 boards (taken from the P8Z77-I Deluxe review SWSP posted in the building thread).  That's AI Suite on my machine. I think that everybody has been guessing the unit that number represented and getting it wrong.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2012 21:41
|
|
|
300000 to 500000.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2012 22:19
|
|
|
Oh man. I am laughing hard enough that you would not believe me say "I'm sorry," if you heard it.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2012 22:39
|
|
|
Actually, Asus BIOSes do commit one cardinal sin: the first time you tweak any setting related to RAM or CPU, it automatically overclocks +4 bins and sets turbo to "by all cores"/lockstep multiplier without asking the user. AnandTech calls it the world's most transparent attempt to look good in benchmarks.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2012 02:38
|
|
|
Ai Tweaker -> Turbo Ratio: Manual, Ratio Synch Control Enabled, ratio limit 40x 4.5 GHz will probably not appreciably affect chip lifetime, since 4.5 GHz doesn't take a lot of voltage on Ivy Bridge. The chip may never make it on the Future Space Shuttle like old 386 chips, but it'll last at least as long as you'll ever find the system useful.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2012 17:16
|
|
|
It's probably not doing harm - it's just a mild overclock. But in principle, it's a dick move.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2012 17:20
|
|
|
Feel free to try Prime95 or IntelBurnTest, but I'd blame the hardware rather than the stress-tester. Add a bit more volt.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2012 17:28
|
|
|
Well, I haven't seen a Z77 BIOS in action, just screenshots of the options. But if it works like my P67 board, then: * Reset the BCLK to 100.0 MHz, as it may be pumped up to 103 * Double check to make sure the voltage and temperatures are not crazy, but if you're on "auto" they should not be. * Make sure LLC didn't get turned on if you don't want it on.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2012 17:32
|
|
|
And now Abit is out of business. 
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2012 19:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 06:37 |
|
|
Endymion FRS MK1 posted:Small question about a really modest overclock, 4.2ghz on an i5-3570K. I have an Asrock Extreme4 Z77, and don't know if I should be using the Turbo 4.2ghz setting or straight up changing the multiplier to 42. Also, how do I lock the voltage at stock? Both of those options raise it automatically to 1.275 instead of the normal 1.2. You can't overclock without using Turbo. If it shows you that happening, it's just an abstraction for your benefit. You do want to overclock without the per-core frequencies, however. For voltage, you probably don't want to use fixed voltage, because that disables many of the chip's power-saving features. But the control is just further down the OC Tweaker page, after you get past the RAM timings. You'll find CPU Core Voltage and CPU LLC right next to each other. E: Wait, poo poo, that was for the P67 Extreme4. Urgh... I hate Googling UEFI guides. DE: Just futz around with the BIOS and check out every option page. Factory Factory fucked around with this message at 04:40 on May 6, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 6, 2012 04:36
|
|