How high can you go on NB clocks with stock CPU-NB ? Do you have time to give it a try ?Originally Posted by Lightman
Hey!
I can't wait till you join in! It's great fun for sure!
Today's day went so quickly that I didn't even noticed it's already dark outside! (I was benching from 10AM). Oh, forgot to eat my lunch
Thanx
If you mean stock volts for NB which are 1.15V then I've been able to run it stable at 2.6GHz
2.8GHz required 1.2V for full stability
3.0 GHz required 1.25V for full stability
Here is a post of mine with quite demanding chess app. running at these settings:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=203
It probably can go to 3.1GHz with moderate voltages but I prefer to gain few more MHz on CPU cores instead.
All this using only AIR cooling (TT120Ultra + 1 FAN) enclosed in case and normal room temperatures (Ambient 18C).
Last edited by Lightman; 05-01-2010 at 03:16 PM.
RiG1: Ryzen 7 1700 @4.0GHz 1.39V, Asus X370 Prime, G.Skill RipJaws 2x8GB 3200MHz CL14 Samsung B-die, TuL Vega 56 Stock, Samsung SS805 100GB SLC SDD (OS Drive) + 512GB Evo 850 SSD (2nd OS Drive) + 3TB Seagate + 1TB Seagate, BeQuiet PowerZone 1000W
RiG2: HTPC AMD A10-7850K APU, 2x8GB Kingstone HyperX 2400C12, AsRock FM2A88M Extreme4+, 128GB SSD + 640GB Samsung 7200, LG Blu-ray Recorder, Thermaltake BACH, Hiper 4M880 880W PSU
SmartPhone Samsung Galaxy S7 EDGE
XBONE paired with 55''Samsung LED 3D TV
Thanx, i thought that for high NB clocks stability, the voltage that made the difference was CPU-NB, not NB Voltage.
Compared to your previous cpu ( 940BE i think) did you see improvements ( NB stable clocks needing lower voltage than relevant 940BE's clocks ) ?
Charts updated.
I love the copy and paste action, folks. My chart maintainer program can auto-parse most of your guys' entries with very little manual conformity cleanup.Easy updates = responsive updates
I'm going to start requiring proof of stability in a standardized form via screen shot for future entries. While I don't think we have anyone trying to cheat the charts for the sake of notoriety, I do think charged has a point. It will help build credibility and also serve to regulate a standardized definition of "stable".
Particle's First Rule of Online Technical Discussion:
As a thread about any computer related subject has its length approach infinity, the likelihood and inevitability of a poorly constructed AMD vs. Intel fight also exponentially increases.
Rule 1A:
Likewise, the frequency of a car pseudoanalogy to explain a technical concept increases with thread length. This will make many people chuckle, as computer people are rarely knowledgeable about vehicular mechanics.
Rule 2:
When confronted with a post that is contrary to what a poster likes, believes, or most often wants to be correct, the poster will pick out only minor details that are largely irrelevant in an attempt to shut out the conflicting idea. The core of the post will be left alone since it isn't easy to contradict what the person is actually saying.
Rule 2A:
When a poster cannot properly refute a post they do not like (as described above), the poster will most likely invent fictitious counter-points and/or begin to attack the other's credibility in feeble ways that are dramatic but irrelevant. Do not underestimate this tactic, as in the online world this will sway many observers. Do not forget: Correctness is decided only by what is said last, the most loudly, or with greatest repetition.
Rule 3:
When it comes to computer news, 70% of Internet rumors are outright fabricated, 20% are inaccurate enough to simply be discarded, and about 10% are based in reality. Grains of salt--become familiar with them.
Remember: When debating online, everyone else is ALWAYS wrong if they do not agree with you!
Random Tip o' the Whatever
You just can't win. If your product offers feature A instead of B, people will moan how A is stupid and it didn't offer B. If your product offers B instead of A, they'll likewise complain and rant about how anyone's retarded cousin could figure out A is what the market wants.
I updated my post, for some reason I put N/A for cpu multiplier, lol
And so it shall be reflected.
To those users who have posted results classified as stable, I request that you please run y-cruncher in stress test mode for eight hours and take a screen shot. I know that's kind of a pain, but in the world of stability testing, short-term tests just don't tell us much. This duration I believe to be a reasonable compromise between accuracy (a couple of days) and what we've got now (as little as 20 minutes). It's the kind of thing you can start and then go to bed. I'm requiring a standardized proof of validation going forward and would like to update the chart to reflect this new standard.
Edit: IBT, OCCT, Prime95, and LinX are also acceptable if 8+ hours but y-cruncher is still strongly preferred.
Last edited by Particle; 05-01-2010 at 09:11 PM.
As a thread about any computer related subject has its length approach infinity, the likelihood and inevitability of a poorly constructed AMD vs. Intel fight also exponentially increases.
Likewise, the frequency of a car pseudoanalogy to explain a technical concept increases with thread length. This will make many people chuckle, as computer people are rarely knowledgeable about vehicular mechanics.
When confronted with a post that is contrary to what a poster likes, believes, or most often wants to be correct, the poster will pick out only minor details that are largely irrelevant in an attempt to shut out the conflicting idea. The core of the post will be left alone since it isn't easy to contradict what the person is actually saying.
When a poster cannot properly refute a post they do not like (as described above), the poster will most likely invent fictitious counter-points and/or begin to attack the other's credibility in feeble ways that are dramatic but irrelevant. Do not underestimate this tactic, as in the online world this will sway many observers. Do not forget: Correctness is decided only by what is said last, the most loudly, or with greatest repetition.
When it comes to computer news, 70% of Internet rumors are outright fabricated, 20% are inaccurate enough to simply be discarded, and about 10% are based in reality. Grains of salt--become familiar with them.
Remember: When debating online, everyone else is ALWAYS wrong if they do not agree with you!
Random Tip o' the Whatever
You just can't win. If your product offers feature A instead of B, people will moan how A is stupid and it didn't offer B. If your product offers B instead of A, they'll likewise complain and rant about how anyone's retarded cousin could figure out A is what the market wants.
Hows failing Prime at stock with turbo disabled for stable
1090T on Biostar TA785G3
Crunches fine though
Still waiting on DFI..........
CPU Model: AMD Phenom II X6 1055T
CPU Stepping:
CPU Frequency: 4018 MHz
CPU vCore: 1.425V
CPU Multiplier: 14x
CPU Turbo: Disabled
CPU NB Speed: 2870 MHz
HT Ref Speed: 287 MHz
RAM Speed: DDR3-1529
RAM Timings: 7-7-7-18-1T
RAM Configuration: 2 x 2GB
RAM vDIMM: 1.76V
Motherboard: ASUS M4A79T Deluxe
Chipset/Socket: 790FX + SB750, AM3
Cooling: Air (Noctua U12P)
Temps: 30C Idle / 51C Load
Operating System: Windows 7
32/64-Bit: 64
Stable/Suicide/Untested: Stable
I have to be doing something wrong. You guys with the 1055t are all around 4ghz-3.8 with like 1.4-1.45 volts. even at 1.525 mine gives me errors in prime. I dont get it.
hmm. Errors on just one core?
This thread was looking promising.
8 hrs on a second tier stability test.
Ill pass.
You aren't alone, zaraza. Mine is the same way. It might go for 5 minutes or 12 hours but even at 1.525V mine can't muster 4004 MHz either despite being pretty close. I play BC2 on it all the time.
@Forsaken1: y-cruncher's stability test is more vicious than Prime95, but then again what isn't these days? If you don't want to run it, that's fine with me but don't knock the quality of the result. The results are of higher quality than requiring Prime95 or many of the other more well-known tests. That being said, I will accept others so long as they're eight hours. Even then that doesn't really prove stability but it's good enough to be a useful mark of reasonable likelihood.
Which test do you regard as superior/preferable?
Last edited by Particle; 05-01-2010 at 09:09 PM.
As a thread about any computer related subject has its length approach infinity, the likelihood and inevitability of a poorly constructed AMD vs. Intel fight also exponentially increases.
Likewise, the frequency of a car pseudoanalogy to explain a technical concept increases with thread length. This will make many people chuckle, as computer people are rarely knowledgeable about vehicular mechanics.
When confronted with a post that is contrary to what a poster likes, believes, or most often wants to be correct, the poster will pick out only minor details that are largely irrelevant in an attempt to shut out the conflicting idea. The core of the post will be left alone since it isn't easy to contradict what the person is actually saying.
When a poster cannot properly refute a post they do not like (as described above), the poster will most likely invent fictitious counter-points and/or begin to attack the other's credibility in feeble ways that are dramatic but irrelevant. Do not underestimate this tactic, as in the online world this will sway many observers. Do not forget: Correctness is decided only by what is said last, the most loudly, or with greatest repetition.
When it comes to computer news, 70% of Internet rumors are outright fabricated, 20% are inaccurate enough to simply be discarded, and about 10% are based in reality. Grains of salt--become familiar with them.
Remember: When debating online, everyone else is ALWAYS wrong if they do not agree with you!
Random Tip o' the Whatever
You just can't win. If your product offers feature A instead of B, people will moan how A is stupid and it didn't offer B. If your product offers B instead of A, they'll likewise complain and rant about how anyone's retarded cousin could figure out A is what the market wants.
Favor to ask:
Can one of you guys with a 1090T BE install BOINC,pick WCG and run the benchmark?
Would be helpfull if the chip was at 4000 for the test.
Thanks..
BOINC is here:6.10.18 for 64 bit OS
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php
Crunch with us, the XS WCG team
The XS WCG team needs your support.
A good project with good goals.
Come join us,get that warm fuzzy feeling that you've done something good for mankind.
I can do this Monday, I am crunching 24/7 here now with WCG. Won't be till late though.
~1~
AMD Ryzen 9 3900X
GigaByte X570 AORUS LITE
Trident-Z 3200 CL14 16GB
AMD Radeon VII
~2~
AMD Ryzen ThreadRipper 2950x
Asus Prime X399-A
GSkill Flare-X 3200mhz, CAS14, 64GB
AMD RX 5700 XT
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...48#post4369948 Done
Yes, you're correct! CPU-NB voltage needs to be adjusted to gain stability above certain clock.
Compared to my previous CPU I see quite big improvement. My old CPU-NB could do 2.38GHz stable at stock volts (1.15V) where this one is super stable @2.6GHz (1.15V) and bench stable at 2.8GHz which suggest that the real max. stability lies somewhere around 2.7-2.75GHz stock volts.
That's 400MHz more. On top of that on 940BE I needed 1.35V to reach 2.9GHz NB compared to only 1.21V needed on new 1090T.
RiG1: Ryzen 7 1700 @4.0GHz 1.39V, Asus X370 Prime, G.Skill RipJaws 2x8GB 3200MHz CL14 Samsung B-die, TuL Vega 56 Stock, Samsung SS805 100GB SLC SDD (OS Drive) + 512GB Evo 850 SSD (2nd OS Drive) + 3TB Seagate + 1TB Seagate, BeQuiet PowerZone 1000W
RiG2: HTPC AMD A10-7850K APU, 2x8GB Kingstone HyperX 2400C12, AsRock FM2A88M Extreme4+, 128GB SSD + 640GB Samsung 7200, LG Blu-ray Recorder, Thermaltake BACH, Hiper 4M880 880W PSU
SmartPhone Samsung Galaxy S7 EDGE
XBONE paired with 55''
Of course!
@Particle
Do you think BOINC 8h is good enough? Because this week we all should be crunching and not wasting our CPU time for pure stress testing.
If you all think BOINC loads are too easy for CPU then I will run y-crunchera after May 8th.
RiG1: Ryzen 7 1700 @4.0GHz 1.39V, Asus X370 Prime, G.Skill RipJaws 2x8GB 3200MHz CL14 Samsung B-die, TuL Vega 56 Stock, Samsung SS805 100GB SLC SDD (OS Drive) + 512GB Evo 850 SSD (2nd OS Drive) + 3TB Seagate + 1TB Seagate, BeQuiet PowerZone 1000W
RiG2: HTPC AMD A10-7850K APU, 2x8GB Kingstone HyperX 2400C12, AsRock FM2A88M Extreme4+, 128GB SSD + 640GB Samsung 7200, LG Blu-ray Recorder, Thermaltake BACH, Hiper 4M880 880W PSU
SmartPhone Samsung Galaxy S7 EDGE
XBONE paired with 55''
Particle, did you buy yours from frys? I remember buying a 720 BE that was defective. It would crash in prime at stock speeds. Im gonna put my cpu to stock and see if it doesnt pass prime.
I think if it runs BFBC2 with no problems then its stable, maybe prime has problems with it? im just having wishful thinking. Im most likely not overclocking correctly.
Nice to know that im not alone. Im afraid to pump too much CPUNB volts. My errors in prime are only on 1 core. It can run fine for 2 hours, then it gives me 1 error on core 6 or 4 or 5. Its wierd.
anyway to enable the 14.5-16.5 multipliers on the 1055t... lol.. I see them in the bios and it lets me select them but ofcoarse it doesnt boot with it. Its like a super big tease!.
just a quick test
* CPU Model: AMD Phenom II X6 1055T
* CPU Stepping: CCBBE CB 1014GPMW
* CPU Frequency: 3976 MHz
* CPU vCore: 1.475V
* CPU Multiplier: 14x
* CPU Turbo: Disabled
* CPU NB Speed: 2556 MHz
* HT Ref Speed: 284 MHz
* RAM Speed: DDR3-1514
* RAM Timings: 8-8-8-22-1T
* RAM Configuration: 2 x 2GB
* RAM vDIMM: 1.65V
* Motherboard: ASUS M4A785TD-V EVO
* Chipset/Socket: 785GX + SB710, AM3
* Cooling: Air (Noctua NH-U12P)
* Temps: 21C Idle / 52C Load
* Operating System: Windows 7
* 32/64-Bit: 64
* Stable/Suicide/Untested: Stable (30 min linx)
power draw idle (c&q + c1e) 68W
load (linx) 340W
4GHz isn't stable atm
So what should if the cpu does not want to post above 3710MHz. What voltage should i raise. Only the CPU voltage is raised to 1.475v. does something else need to be raised or set somewhere so I can attempt to get this at 4.0 stable which is my only goal.
My rig the Kill-Jacker
CPU: AMD Phenom II 1055T 3.82GHz
Mobo: ASUS Crosshair IV Extreme
Game GPU: EVGA GTX580
Secondary GPU 2: EVGA GTX470
Memory: Mushkin DDR3 1600 Ridgeback 8GB
PSU: Silverstone SST-ST1000-P
HDD: WD 250GB Blue 7200RPM
HDD2: WD 1TB Blue 7200RPM
CPU Cooler: TRUE120 Rev. B Pull
Case: Antec 1200
FAH Tracker V2 Project Site
Since you have to use the HT Ref clock to increase core frequency which also raised the RAMs clock as well, where is your ram clocked? If it is above what it can do speed wise it may need to have the divider dropped or the voltage raised. This may be the reason it won't post. Of course NB and Ht Ref clock in general could be a factor as well. Can ypu post your overal settings?
~1~
AMD Ryzen 9 3900X
GigaByte X570 AORUS LITE
Trident-Z 3200 CL14 16GB
AMD Radeon VII
~2~
AMD Ryzen ThreadRipper 2950x
Asus Prime X399-A
GSkill Flare-X 3200mhz, CAS14, 64GB
AMD RX 5700 XT
I don't think that's a good metric to go by. In the case of WCG, you may not even know there's a problem for days until your returned WUs get marked as invalid. I know I had that happen at 4GHz. It might go all night doing WCG or BSOD after two hours. All the while it was producing invalid WUs.
As a thread about any computer related subject has its length approach infinity, the likelihood and inevitability of a poorly constructed AMD vs. Intel fight also exponentially increases.
Likewise, the frequency of a car pseudoanalogy to explain a technical concept increases with thread length. This will make many people chuckle, as computer people are rarely knowledgeable about vehicular mechanics.
When confronted with a post that is contrary to what a poster likes, believes, or most often wants to be correct, the poster will pick out only minor details that are largely irrelevant in an attempt to shut out the conflicting idea. The core of the post will be left alone since it isn't easy to contradict what the person is actually saying.
When a poster cannot properly refute a post they do not like (as described above), the poster will most likely invent fictitious counter-points and/or begin to attack the other's credibility in feeble ways that are dramatic but irrelevant. Do not underestimate this tactic, as in the online world this will sway many observers. Do not forget: Correctness is decided only by what is said last, the most loudly, or with greatest repetition.
When it comes to computer news, 70% of Internet rumors are outright fabricated, 20% are inaccurate enough to simply be discarded, and about 10% are based in reality. Grains of salt--become familiar with them.
Remember: When debating online, everyone else is ALWAYS wrong if they do not agree with you!
Random Tip o' the Whatever
You just can't win. If your product offers feature A instead of B, people will moan how A is stupid and it didn't offer B. If your product offers B instead of A, they'll likewise complain and rant about how anyone's retarded cousin could figure out A is what the market wants.
Fair enough
I will use y-cruncher then after May 8th
RiG1: Ryzen 7 1700 @4.0GHz 1.39V, Asus X370 Prime, G.Skill RipJaws 2x8GB 3200MHz CL14 Samsung B-die, TuL Vega 56 Stock, Samsung SS805 100GB SLC SDD (OS Drive) + 512GB Evo 850 SSD (2nd OS Drive) + 3TB Seagate + 1TB Seagate, BeQuiet PowerZone 1000W
RiG2: HTPC AMD A10-7850K APU, 2x8GB Kingstone HyperX 2400C12, AsRock FM2A88M Extreme4+, 128GB SSD + 640GB Samsung 7200, LG Blu-ray Recorder, Thermaltake BACH, Hiper 4M880 880W PSU
SmartPhone Samsung Galaxy S7 EDGE
XBONE paired with 55''
This is really stupid!
I got fed up with my cpu not passing prime, so i upped the voltage to 1.575, while running prime cpuz showed up to 1.6v.
I still got the same damn error on the same damn core. I get it at 3.8 - 3.9 - 4.0 - 4.1 I have not tried 3.7, no matter what volts i give. Something has got to be wrong. This thing probably isnt even stable at stock speeds.like this always happens to me lol.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks