**Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD7 OC-Tips-Bios-Discussion Thread**

I'm having some trouble learning to overclock as well. Disabled stuff that isn't needed, seem to have decent temps, but crashes after a long burn. I'm running a core i7 980X and I bumped the multiplier to 29x and left the BCLK alone at 133. I bumped the VCore to 1.275.

I'm wondering what should be my next step? Should I bump the Vcore up to 1.300? Is there another voltage I should tweak? Should I drop the multiplier to 27?

I'm running 12 GB of Corsair Dominator at 1600 MHz with 8-8-8-24 timings (XMP Profile1).

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...k/Unstable.jpg

you might want to decrease your multipyer and start increasing your BCLK
I have a 930 with BCLK of 200 and multiplyer of 21 giving me an OC of 4.2Ghz.
I know i can go higher (watercooled as my CPU temp never goes above 70DegC with Linx but just no time to muck with it.
to many voltages to fiddle with. not enough time to adjust each one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadHacker

you might want to decrease your multipyer and start increasing your BCLK
I have a 930 with BCLK of 200 and multiplyer of 21 giving me an OC of 4.2Ghz.
I know i can go higher (watercooled as my CPU temp never goes above 70DegC with Linx but just no time to muck with it.
to many voltages to fiddle with. not enough time to adjust each one.

---

I was planning on testing multiplier and BCLK separately to see what I could do for each one on it's own and then combine the two to get the best overall OC. That's why I haven't messed with BCLK yet, just starting and went with mult first.

from what i have been reading you lower your multiplier to as low as it can go and then first increase your BCLK to find it maximum.

I dont think XMP Profile will work the same when using 12gigs of memory. VTT is most likely what you will need to increase. Try running only 6gb of memory using XMP Profile to check stability first.
XMP Profile is used when you are running the cpu at default clocks to get the memory to run at its rated speed, not when overclocking, that is my understanding anyway.

xmp can sometimes be too high.
980x intel "absolute max" vtt is 1.4v
(I think) my 3x2gb Dominator GT 2kc7 xmp sets vtt to 1.46v.

My new toy :D

http://img32.yfrog.com/gal.php?g=p5240634.jpg

I realized I didn't change the VTT and that this was the problem. I increased it from it's default 1.2V up to 1.34V. I set Vcore at 1.3V. I tried a multiplier of 31x and a BCLK of 133 for 4.13 MHz. No luck though, it failed burn test fairly rapidly. Although the temps looked good.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4.../Unstable2.jpg

I wonder if I should be using a very low multiplier and raising the BCLK first? Maybe I'll try that next. I'll try playing around with BCLK of 200 and BCLK of 160 and see if either of those yields good results with a low multiplier of around 19 or 21.

^^Probably your CPU needs more than 1.28v for 4.13GHz. Try to raise the vCore and try again. Make sure your RAM-timing is loose to eliminate the RAM-problems when you are trying to find the vCore.
Your VVT=1.34v sounds too much for that Uncore-frequency too, you could try to reduce that too.

You could try higher BCLK too, but both vCore and VVT are dependent on your CPU-batch#/setup. You have to play with these to find the right one for your setup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lsdmeasap

This sounds like OS issues to me, defrag your drives and run chkdsk and see if that helps.

---

I agree with you. This issue seems to be OS related. Vista or XP doesn´t act in this way. Just W 7 doesn´t like anything...
So I defraged W 7 as you told me but nothing has been changed though. Chkdsk didn´t find any errors.
Maybe it´s a running program which puts W 7 into an endless shut down loop.:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolas

I wonder if I should be using a very low multiplier and raising the BCLK first? Maybe I'll try that next. I'll try playing around with BCLK of 200 and BCLK of 160 and see if either of those yields good results with a low multiplier of around 19 or 21.

---

Thats the way that I would go. I would start at 200*19 and work your way up from there. For beginning voltages I'd go with a QPI/VTT of 1.35v and CPU core voltage of 1.35v

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fritz_the_germ

I agree with you. This issue seams to be OS related. Vista or XP doesn´t act in this way. Just W 7 doesn´t like anything...
So I defraged W 7 as you told me but nothing has been changed though. Chkdsk didn´t find any errors.
Maybe it´s a running program which puts W 7 into an endless shut down loop.:(

---

go through with TaskManager and end tasks before shutting down. that may help in identifying the app that is giving you grief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wevsspot

Thats the way that I would go. I would start at 200*19 and work your way up from there. For beginning voltages I'd go with a QPI/VTT of 1.35v and CPU core voltage of 1.35v

---

I tried 200*19 and didn't have much luck with it.

It wouldn't let me pick QPI/VTT of 1.35V, it gave me choices of 1.34 or 1.36. Am I doing that wrong?

I did get a stable 4GHz overclock today, just got done with Intel Burn Test.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...ack/Stable.jpg

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1207021

This was with VCore of 1.3, QPI/VTT of 1.34. I probably need to bump up the Vcore a bit if I want to get a higher overclock, I might try that or just leave it like this and be happy. I should probably save this BIOS so that I don't forget how I did it.

I wonder if I should re-enable turbo mode and test stability again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolas

I tried 200*19 and didn't have much luck with it.

It wouldn't let me pick QPI/VTT of 1.35V, it gave me choices of 1.34 or 1.36. Am I doing that wrong?

I did get a stable 4GHz overclock today, just got done with Intel Burn Test.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v482/Bolas/Blue%20on%20Black/Stable.jpg[/IMG]

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1207021

This was with VCore of 1.3, QPI/VTT of 1.34. I probably need to bump up the Vcore a bit if I want to get a higher overclock, I might try that or just leave it like this and be happy. I should probably save this BIOS so that I don't forget how I did it.

I wonder if I should re-enable turbo mode and test stability again?

---

VVT=1.32v to 1.34v looks Ok for this Uncore-frequency, and you are not doing it worng, the VVT jumps by 2 in UD7-BIOS, from 1.32 to 1.34v.

This looks like a good start. Save it as a profle and and don't touch it. Keep it as a refrence, and save your changes and new attempts as a new profile. (F11 to save a profile, F12 to load, in BIOS)

Try to decrease the vCore a few nothes, and if it fails the stabilty-test, then your previus attempt on 4.13GHz needs more vCore. Don't use turbo, try 160x26 or 165x25 with more vCore for your next attempt, if you want more than 4GHZ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fritz_the_germ

I agree with you. This issue seems to be OS related. Vista or XP doesn´t act in this way. Just W 7 doesn´t like anything...
So I defraged W 7 as you told me but nothing has been changed though. Chkdsk didn´t find any errors.
Maybe it´s a running program which puts W 7 into an endless shut down loop.:(

---

I'd suggest a clean install, I just had another user with similar shut down issues here fixed by a clean install. And I do remember this a few times in the past too
http://forums.tweaktown.com/f69/p45-...tml#post357149

hi there, I made my way into intel's 4500mhz club tonight :)

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/5...zlinx20.th.jpg

Any of our German friends will upload BIOS F7m from JZ?
BIOS F7m came with new layout (as for P55 and UD9).
This new layout appear also for rev.2.0.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam_oslo

VVT=1.32v to 1.34v looks Ok for this Uncore-frequency, and you are not doing it worng, the VVT jumps by 2 in UD7-BIOS, from 1.32 to 1.34v.

This looks like a good start. Save it as a profle and and don't touch it. Keep it as a refrence, and save your changes and new attempts as a new profile. (F11 to save a profile, F12 to load, in BIOS)

Try to decrease the vCore a few nothes, and if it fails the stabilty-test, then your previus attempt on 4.13GHz needs more vCore. Don't use turbo, try 160x26 or 165x25 with more vCore for your next attempt, if you want more than 4GHZ.

---

How high should I set the VTT running an uncore of 3900 MHz ?

so I was having problems with reboots on sleep, now I realized I also had problems with reboot on SHUT OFF!!!

What the flux?

I tried removing my power/reset buttons and LEDs from the board while thinking that it could be causing a short but it didn't fix it. I tried going for stock clocks/volts and it didn't fix it either. I'm really puzzled.

I'm quite new to i7 overclocking, and I'm wondering which settings I could tweak to lower the required vCore for a stable overclock. Currently I need quite a bit of vCore to get my overclocks stable. Thanks! :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fritz_the_germ

How high should I set the VTT running an uncore of 3900 MHz ?

---

I would tip ~1.38v for that frequency with x20 Uncore. It will usually need less for the same frequency with x16 Uncore. But all this may wary depending on your CPU and how strong IMC/Uncore it got, and you may need less or more.

New BIOS GA-X58A-UD7 - F7m (26.05.10)
Info: New layout (as for P55 and UD9)
Fix: minusDVID
New Layout: http://www.jzelectronic.de/jz2/html/...x58a-ud7-2.php
GA-X58A-UD7 - F7m

http://www.jzelectronic.de/jz2/Bios/x58aud7f7m.exe

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/522/4620mhzlinx20.jpg

220x21 @ 1.41v :)

Actually, this time around I ran with llc 2 therefore it shoots up to 1.42-1.44v in cpu-z during the linx 20 pass test.

^^ that's a good OC :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boldenc

New BIOS GA-X58A-UD7 - F7m (26.05.10)
Info: New layout (as for P55 and UD9)
Fix: minusDVID
New Layout: http://www.jzelectronic.de/jz2/html/...x58a-ud7-2.php
GA-X58A-UD7 - F7m

http://www.jzelectronic.de/jz2/Bios/x58aud7f7m.exe

---

Is this going to be the lay out of the future, or just a German adventure that will disappear with next official BIOS?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam_oslo

Is this going to be the lay out of the future, or just a German adventure that will disappear with next official BIOS?

---

Not sure, but the UD9 and the new x58A Rev 2.0 use this new layout

I flashed to it and the new layout is really much easier and my old settings are working fine.