Page 138 of 138 FirstFirst ... 3888128135136137138
Results 3,426 to 3,432 of 3432

Thread: Core i7/X58 Overclocking Thread

  1. #3426
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Germany, Stuttgart
    Posts
    549
    My new Baby (just the Classified )
    But I can't top the bclk of 224. I know, the CF can do it. With another i7950 it booted with 231!!!



  2. #3427
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    18
    Hi guys... well done with you clocks!

    My question here is.. what is the temp range for nb and mobo? I have hit a wall of a bclk of 227 at 1.3vtt and under load nb temp is nearing 50c on air with mobo at 38c

    Thanks

  3. #3428
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    pacific NW usa
    Posts
    2,764
    emertX,very nice cpu you got there.thats the kind im looking for.one that doe 4.2 with 1.16v to 1.18v
    i'll keep looking as im sure someone will sell one soon.
    _________________________________________________
    ............................ImAcOmPuTeRsPoNgE............................
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    MY HEATWARE 76-0-0

  4. #3429
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    39
    What are the requirements to post for sale here? I have my 975 for sale on overclock.net but there are too many noobs and younger crowd there, not enough serious people like here.
    Tech Bench. Core i7 920 3845B028 4.44 HT 1.32V. GSKILL 2000 @ 2104 8-9-8. e760 EVGA Classified. SLI GTX 470s. Enermax Galaxy Evo 1250 watt. Swiftech XT, MCP 355, EK Full Cover 470. Black ICE GTX360. Bitspower compression fittings

  5. #3430
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    pacific NW usa
    Posts
    2,764
    i think its 100 posts
    _________________________________________________
    ............................ImAcOmPuTeRsPoNgE............................
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    MY HEATWARE 76-0-0

  6. #3431
    Xtreme Monster
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,182
    I was playing around and it has been a while since I have posted a result.

    Metroid- 4.17GHz v1.29, Asus P6T Deluxe v2, Crucial 3GB 7-7-7-18 v1.50
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Metroid; 10-16-2010 at 01:51 PM.

  7. #3432
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    335
    Quote Originally Posted by dejanh View Post
    Ok, I think I finally have some answers to the 20x multiplier instability and a number of other issues many users are complaining about. You will have to follow me here as this is not that simple, but it makes a lot of sense and all of my testing to date has actually confirmed it. I have spent a lot of time figuring this out and I really hope that this will help people. Indeed, I am now able to predict ahead of time what settings will POST, what settings will not, and approximately which component will need to be juiced up higher to result in a more stable system. Furthermore, this will be a very thorough overview of Core i7 overclocking that will expose some serious limitations, particularly on the i7 920 and i7 940 parts. It is all primarily linked to the Uncore and QPI speeds.
    First off, I will use the Core i7 940 for all of my examples. Core i7 920 and i7 940 are for all intents and purposes the exact same chip, but the i7 940 is just factory clocked higher. These are most likely not higher binned chips, and even if they are by some chance it really does not matter. You will soon see why. In essence, same holds true for the i7 965 EE though they are certainly higher binned and quite likely somewhat more forgiving when overclocking. The fact that they can overclock using an unlocked multiplier is a huge bonus for this chip.
    For details on each of the CPU specifications see Intel's website and tech specs/data sheets. I'll just briefly mention the specs here, for reference.

    Core i7 920 - 2.66GHz, 20x133MHz, 4.8GT/s QPI (2.4GHz), QPI multiplier 18x (18x133MHz)
    Core i7 940 - 2.93GHz, 22x133MHz, 4.8GT/s QPI (2.4GHz), QPI multiplier 18x (18x133MHz)
    Core i7 965 EE - 3.2GHz, 24x133MHz, 6.4GT/s QPI (3.2GHz), QPI multiplier 24x (24x133MHz)

    The key thing to remember here is that for Core i7 processors everything is interconnected, much like in case of AMD processors. Therefore, changing the BCLK speed affects everything from core speed, to QPI link speed, to Uncore speed, to memory speed. The key elements and the limiting ones here are the last three, the QPI link speed, Uncore speed, and memory speed. Particularly, the QPI is the limiting factor for the other elements as the highest stable QPI link speed for the current Core i7 processors is 8.0GT/s or 4.0GHz for 99% of systems out there. Some exceptions have been observed, but these are extremely rare. This may also be chipset dependent limitation and it is possible that newer chipsets supporting Core i7 will not have this limitation. Anyway, enough introduction. Let's get to the details.

    First let's look at the relationships between QPI, Uncore, and DRAM speeds.

    DRAM speed must be in a 1:2 ratio or less to Uncore speed which in turn must be in 1:1 or less ratio to QPI link speed (8:9 Uncore to QPI or lower is preferred as the more you approach 1:1 the more unstable the system becomes).

    So why Uncore to QPI ratio of 8:9?

    I derived this ratio from Intel's specifications on Core i7 processors. Highest supported memory for Core i7 is 1066MHz with a QPI of 4.8GT/s or 2.4GHz. According to processor specifications then, Uncore would be running at 2xDRAM (or 2x DRAM multiplier, in this case 16x) which results in an Uncore speed of 2132MHz. When you take the ratio of Uncore to QPI you will get 2132:2400 or approximately 8:9.

    I can run my Uncore higher than QPI and I am not seeing any problems. How come?

    This is possible. In my testing this proved to be less stable than keeping Uncore speed below that of QPI. However, more importantly I found that running Uncore and QPI in a ratio more than 8:9 and approaching 1:1 made the system quite unstable, especially with added stress when overclocking. Furthermore, it is quite likely that running QPI lower than Uncore results in some performance degradation (I did not test this however). Finally, it is important to note that this flexibility is in a large part not there on the non EE parts as you do not have control over core multipliers to the extent where you could be running Uncore very high and QPI link very low as was shown in this example:

    http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...79#post3491979

    As a general rule of thumb I did not want to test combinations that fall way outside Intel's specifications, that require voltages approaching critical values according to Intel datasheets, etc. Most users are looking to overclock but still run a long term stable system and not just get the highest benchmark score. Naturally, a lot of instability issues can be resolved by sufficiently increasing voltages to the components experiencing problems but this is very risky and not sustainable for long term use. To be safe I would strongly advise staying within the limits specified by Intel (can be seen here http:// www.xtremesystems.org /forums/showpost.php?p=3435336&postcount=13) and recommend staying at least a good percentage below the absolute maximums.

    Now that we know this relationship, let's dive right into some of the most common issues with Core i7 processors.

    1. Why is it that I cannot run my 2000MHz memory in my new Core i7 system?

    To understand this note the maximum QPI link speed we mentioned earlier. Using the simple ratio we defined, we can see that with the maximum QPI link speed of 4.0GHz we can have a theoretical maximum Uncore of 4.0GHz and a maximum memory speed of 2.0GHz. These however are only theoretical maximums and are by no means guaranteed. For starters, QPI and Uncore cannot be run at the same speed as any clock oscillations can result in a crash if the ratio of QPI to Uncore ever falls below 1:1. Therefore, Uncore must always be below QPI to avoid this, and preferably below the 8:9 Uncore to QPI ratio to guarantee stability. Consequently, if we cannot achieve 4.0GHz Uncore, this means that we absolutely cannot achieve 2.0GHz memory and we can therefore not guarantee any stability for 2.0GHz memory. Technically, the maximum DRAM speed for a stable system is equal to ((Max. Uncore) / (Safe QPI:Uncore Ratio)) / 2 or (4.0GHz / 9:8) / 2 = 1.777GHz. In between 1.777GHz DRAM and 2.0GHz DRAM you are likely to experience some level of instability over the long term. Past 2.0GHz you are just plain lucky.

    2. Why is it that almost none of the X58 boards can reliably clock the BCLK over 222MHz?

    The answer to this again lies in the QPI link speed. At default (and lowest possible multiplier) for QPI of 18x the QPI link speed becomes 18x222MHz or 3.996GHz (4.0GHz). As we have already stated earlier this is dangerously close to the maximum QPI link speed and is therefore very unreliable. Anything higher than 222MHz and you have exceeded the current QPI maximum so in 99% of cases you will experience no POST. For this matter, a simple guideline is that any BCLK combined with a QPI multiplier that is at or very near maximum 4.0GHz QPI link speed is a candidate for no POST or instability.

    3. What the heck is the deal with the 20x multiplier then?

    This one is a real kicker (in a funny way). Yes, 20x multiplier is special, in more than one way, but mostly in the way people are trying to use it. You see, there is nothing wrong with the 20x multiplier. Indeed, it works, just like all other multipliers, perfectly fine. It is the DRAM multiplier and BCLK that people are combining with it that causes problems when combined with the QPI multiplier and the Uncore speed. At 20x200MHz, our default memory multiplier is 8 and our memory is at 1600MHz. The Uncore speed becomes 16x200MHz or 3.2GHz (or 2xDRAM at minimum). Therefore, remembering our (safe) ratios of 8:9 Uncore to QPI we see that the QPI link speed must be a minimum of 3.6GHz or higher. In case of 20x200MHz the Uncore and QPI are exactly in this ratio and with the added stress on the core, cache, IMC, DRAM, etc. this becomes a problem. At this point clock oscillations become much more prominent and if the QPI link speed falls below the 9:8 ratio to Uncore at any point in time combined with the added stress on the components the system can and likely will become unstable. Hence, at 20x200MHz with a default memory, Uncore and QPI multipliers we cannot really have a 100% stable system. So you say "just up the QPI link speed then". Not so fast. Remember our multipliers for QPI? They start at 18x, and the next is 22x, and so on. Unfortunately, 22x200MHz results in QPI link speed of 4.4GHz which results in no POST. Therefore, this cannot be done. Indeed, the highest reliable BCLK for default multipliers when using 20x core multiplier is 181MHz which with a 22x QPI multiplier would result in 3.982GHz QPI link. Even if you could set QPI multiplier to 20x, this would still not work for 99% of the boards out there as your QPI link would still be 4.0GHz. So what is the solution you ask? Memory multiplier. It needs to be lower. 1600MHz DRAM is approaching the maximum stress point for 20x200MHz core settings as it pushes on the limits of Uncore and QPI too much. By using a lower memory multiplier (say 6x if possible) the DRAM speed would become 6x200MHz or 1200MHz, Uncore could then be set at 2.4GHz with a lower multiplier which would then allow the QPI link to stay at 18x and well below the QPI link limits but still in a stable ratio to the Uncore.

    So there you go. A couple of answers to some of the most painful Core i7 questions. Unfortunately, if you can read between the lines, this does not bode well for anyone owning a Core i7 940 or a 965 EE. For all intents and purposes Core i7 920 performance and Core i7 940 performance are identical. Core i7 965 EE has more flexibility but only because of its unlocked multiplier which allows it to use lower BCLK speeds and DRAM multipliers to achieve higher clocks. Otherwise, it is no different than a Core i7 920 or a Core i7 940. Like I said before, this may also be a chipset imposed limitation, and the processors themselves may be a lot better but at the moment, the state of the affairs is like this.

    I have put a lot of thought and work into this so please if you want to comment do it constructively. I welcome any feedback and I hope that this will help a lot of people. It has helped me now to have a rock solid 4-core/8-thread, full 64-bit instruction set 4GHz air-only overclock on the Core i7 940 combined with a nice 1800MHz on my Corsair Dominator triple-channel sticks while keeping all of the voltages within Intel's recommended settings (i.e., DRAM is below 1.65V, QPI/DRAM is below 1.4V, and Vcore is below 1.39V under 100% load).


    I've been having thoughts like this as well. Which leads me to my next question which may have already have been answered but I haven't found it.

    This is my question....

    Does the I7-990x MC fall into the same rules that you and I have observed or is there some freedom in new uncore ratios that allow for more tweaking of the memory... more stability of over clocks...???

Page 138 of 138 FirstFirst ... 3888128135136137138

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •