|
When using this resource, please read FragKrag's opening post. The Tech Support forum regulars have helped create countless of desktop systems without any compensation. The least you can do is provide all of the information required for them to help you properly. |
On January 10 2012 09:31 Ancestral wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 08 2012 20:26 Womwomwom wrote:
Use Intel Burn Test. Prime95 takes up to 24 hours to properly test stability. Intel Burn Test should start shooting error messages twenty minutes in or after 5-10 passes. I'm surprised people still recommend Prime95 for stability testing, especially since no one uses AMD processors anymore.
After 20 passes with Intel Burn Test, chances are your processor is completely stable. Thanks. I can pass 20 tests on normal and high, but not maximum! Some blokes say Normal is enough, or even high. What should I do? Max temps hit 68°C, and opinion ranges from 70°C is the highest for a burn test, some say 75°C is okay. Should I increase VCore more? Like to 1.39 or 1.40? Should I turn off C1E or EIST (C3 and C6 are already off)? There are lots of opinions out there. What does the TL.net computer build resource thread think? I know there isn't a "perfect" overclock, increasing voltage means more heat, more power, but decreasing frequency means fewer GHz. Of course, I haven't actually installed music software yet so maybe I already have more overhead than I could ever want (but probably not). Edit: tl;dr 4.5 GHz, 1.36 volts, passes 20 burn tests on high, but not on max, what should I do?
Are you using manual or offset? What is LLC set to?
|
I would prefer not to see over 1.36V. More voltage also means higher probability of degradation, even without higher temperatures, so I would always err on the safe side unless you know that you need more performance. In fact, I'd go to 1.3V (unless lower is stable), 4.2-4.3 GHz or so and leave it, unless you can justify needing the extra 300 MHz or so.
But like everybody else, I don't have hard evidence either.
What motherboard is it? If it's not stable on max but turns out to be okay for everything else, that's not really a problem as you'll never see that kind of load anywhere else anyway. 1.36V with max load at 4.5 GHz might just be a higher power draw than a low-mid P67 or Z68 motherboard can handle well. If you want, you could probably just run your current settings and forget about what you saw.
|
from what I've read, 1.4V is actually considered really safe and good
|
On January 10 2012 09:49 skyR wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2012 09:31 Ancestral wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 08 2012 20:26 Womwomwom wrote:
Use Intel Burn Test. Prime95 takes up to 24 hours to properly test stability. Intel Burn Test should start shooting error messages twenty minutes in or after 5-10 passes. I'm surprised people still recommend Prime95 for stability testing, especially since no one uses AMD processors anymore.
After 20 passes with Intel Burn Test, chances are your processor is completely stable. Thanks. I can pass 20 tests on normal and high, but not maximum! Some blokes say Normal is enough, or even high. What should I do? Max temps hit 68°C, and opinion ranges from 70°C is the highest for a burn test, some say 75°C is okay. Should I increase VCore more? Like to 1.39 or 1.40? Should I turn off C1E or EIST (C3 and C6 are already off)? There are lots of opinions out there. What does the TL.net computer build resource thread think? I know there isn't a "perfect" overclock, increasing voltage means more heat, more power, but decreasing frequency means fewer GHz. Of course, I haven't actually installed music software yet so maybe I already have more overhead than I could ever want (but probably not). Edit: tl;dr 4.5 GHz, 1.36 volts, passes 20 burn tests on high, but not on max, what should I do? Are you using manual or offset? What is LLC set to?
There is only dynamic VCore on my MoBo, which I assume is the same as offset. If I disable C1E and EIST, then dynamic VCore just adds a constant to whatever voltage the motherboard chooses as the minimum for a given multiplier. 1.36 was just the max it hit in a burn test after I set the offset to +0.05 with a multiplier of 45, it would always be at 1.36 with +0.05 and C1E and EIST off. I can't change LLC. Edit: You can also have a negative dynamic VCore, if that wasn't apparent.
On January 10 2012 09:55 Myrmidon wrote:
I would prefer not to see over 1.36V. More voltage also means higher probability of degradation, even without higher temperatures, so I would always err on the safe side unless you know that you need more performance. In fact, I'd go to 1.3V (unless lower is stable), 4.2-4.3 GHz or so and leave it, unless you can justify needing the extra 300 MHz or so.
But like everybody else, I don't have hard evidence either.
What motherboard is it? If it's not stable on max but turns out to be okay for everything else, that's not really a problem as you'll never see that kind of load anywhere else anyway. 1.36V with max load at 4.5 GHz might just be a higher power draw than a low-mid P67 or Z68 motherboard can handle well. If you want, you could probably just run your current settings and forget about what you saw.
It's a Gigabyte Z68m-d2h, so yeah, it's a low-mid board ($115 USD on Newegg). Power draw peaked at around 119 watts in a max test. If the difference is the CPU lasting 1 year instead of 2, that's not outrageous, but neither is the performance gain from .3GHz.
I suppose I'll use Ableton Live (digital audio workstation) and see how things go. If the CPU maxes at 70% then I probably don't need the tiny boost. And I could try 1.3, and see if it still passes high, and if it does, I won't look back (unless it starts BSODing or something).
On January 10 2012 10:02 Shikyo wrote:
from what I've read, 1.4V is actually considered really safe and good
Yeah I've heard 1.52 is the number everyone throws around as max, 1.45 "should" be safe, and a lot of people are running 1.4. But in every thread there is someone always saying "I got 4.6 (or whatever) at 1.32. You're doing it wrong!"
|
5930 Posts
1.52V is definitely not the max; that's way over Intel's specified maximum for even Lynnfield (1.4V). Due to the smaller process and change in architecture, 1.35V is the defacto maximum unless you have zero care about your processor's transistors falling apart.
Intel has never specified a maximum vcore in their official documents but early questioning on their engineers has lead to a "nothing more than 1.36V" answer. Considering every other maximum voltage values they said was more or less correct, I'm willing to believe that their "1.36V" value is close enough to being correct even how there is zero proof.
There is only dynamic VCore on my MoBo, which I assume is the same as offset. If I disable C1E and EIST, then dynamic VCore just adds a constant to whatever voltage the motherboard chooses as the minimum for a given multiplier. 1.36 was just the max it hit in a burn test after I set the offset to +0.05 with a multiplier of 45, it would always be at 1.36 with +0.05 and C1E and EIST off. I can't change LLC. Edit: You can also have a negative dynamic VCore, if that wasn't apparent.
Can you turn off LLC? If so, turn it off. Gigabyte's LLC is defective. Even in the best of times, on good motherboards, its not the best idea.
Also no idea why you'd turn off the power management features.
|
On January 10 2012 11:28 Womwomwom wrote:1.52V is definitely not the max; that's way over Intel's specified maximum for even Lynnfield (1.4V). Due to the smaller process and change in architecture, 1.35V is the defacto maximum unless you have zero care about your processor's transistors falling apart. Intel has never specified a maximum vcore in their official documents but early questioning on their engineers has lead to a "nothing more than 1.36V" answer. Considering every other maximum voltage values they said was more or less correct, I'm willing to believe that their "1.36V" value is close enough to being correct even how there is zero proof. Show nested quote +There is only dynamic VCore on my MoBo, which I assume is the same as offset. If I disable C1E and EIST, then dynamic VCore just adds a constant to whatever voltage the motherboard chooses as the minimum for a given multiplier. 1.36 was just the max it hit in a burn test after I set the offset to +0.05 with a multiplier of 45, it would always be at 1.36 with +0.05 and C1E and EIST off. I can't change LLC. Edit: You can also have a negative dynamic VCore, if that wasn't apparent. Can you turn off LLC? If so, turn it off. Gigabyte's LLC is defective. Even in the best of times, on good motherboards, its not the best idea. Also no idea why you'd turn off the power management features.
If you google i5 2500k max voltage, a lot of forums and threads have references to internal Intel documents that say 1.52 is the max safe voltage. And lots of people with 1.4 being told by other people that's too high, or that they should increase it...
Edit: Obviously, I've never seen these documents, or a link to them...
I think I'll go for the lowest possible voltage while passing several iterations of 20 "high" burn tests, since that's what the processor can do now, and adjust in the future if I get errors in Windows. If I absolutely can't got under 1.36, I'll just try 4.4GHz. Meh. I'm done writing songs for about a month so I won't be pushing my CPU extremely hard for a month. In the meantime, since electricity is free for me, I've thought about doing some mining...
I'm not near that computer right now, but I'll look into disabling LLC too, thanks for that tip.
|
5930 Posts
If you google i5 2500k max voltage, a lot of forums and threads have references to internal Intel documents that say 1.52 is the max safe voltage. And lots of people with 1.4 being told by other people that's too high, or that they should increase it...
I'm taken a look at the whitesheets myself. 1.52V is NOT the correct safe maximum limit. That is the VID range expressed in binary - check the 8bit VID register, 1.52V is 11111111. Intel has not specified a maximum vcore like all of their other processors so no one knows what the actual maximum values are - probably because its pretty much impossible to be sure and is dependent on other variables like temperature.
Unsurprisingly, that hilariously huge 1.52V values (this is 0.12V more than Lynnfield for crying out loud and even more than AMD processors...raw common sense would tell you that it is definitely not 1.52V) seems to be from overclock.net.
|
Yeah, mine is running at 4.5 at 1.32V ; I was running ~4.9 at 1.4V
The temps I got at 1.4V I wouldn't even think about 1.52V -_-
What do you have yours running at skyR?
|
Hi guys,
Getting tired of my StarCraft-related applications being incompatible with my '08 MBP and looking for a budget configuration that will let me play SC2 as well as stream (if possible) from time to time.
I already own a 120GB SATA 3 (6Gb/s) that will house everything; no need for additional storage. My monitor, keyboard, and mouse are already taken care of.
What is your budget?
I'm trying to stay under 650 USD as it's all I can afford right now. We just had a newborn baby and most of my funds will be used for her. If necessary, I will up the budget to 800 USD if that's what is needed for my preferences (see below).
What is your resolution?
1680x1050. Might consider getting another monitor for a dual-monitor configuration but at this moment, not very likely. FWIW, I play SC2 on low with textures set to high. I don't want to play in Ultra, but would love to have it as a possibility.
What are you using it for?
This will primarily be a StarCraft-related computer. Would love to stream games if possible. Most likely will be using this for RDP and VNC (for work) as well, so great performance there is required. Being able to listen to Spotify while multitasking is also a must. Otherwise, just basic Microsoft Office, Chrome, and a Twitter app to be determined is all I need my computer for.
What is your upgrade cycle?
N/A, if anything not for another 2+ years. Just looking for something that can run SC2 extremely well; I do not have and currently not looking at playing any other computer games.
When do you plan on building it?
As soon as possible would be nice.
Do you plan on overclocking?
Not a necessity, but I would if it will help me do what I want to do.
Do you need an Operating System?
Not included in the budget.
Do you plan to add a second GPU for SLI or Crossfire?
Not in the foreseeable future.
Where are you buying your parts from?
I will need to buy them online. I'm on one of the outer Hawaiian Islands so available parts are scarce here.
Thank you in advance, and looking forward to seeing your responses.
|
|
|
While we're talking sandy bridge OCs, do you guys have any thoughts on whether auto voltage or manually set is better? I have an MSI board (z68a-g45) so there's no offset vcore, just auto or pick a number. When I set the voltage, it never decreases, but auto sometimes pulls it up to around 1.35-1.36 in cpu-z (I set for 44 multiplier, it seems to hover around 4.0-4.2-4.3) during stress tests and will downvolt to around 1.0 V when not in use.
So what's better, having vcore around 1.25-1.3ish all the time (depending on what I can get for maybe 4.2-4.3) or allowing it to come down to 1.0 but peak around 1.35?
Or if there's settings to allow it to decrease when set, let me know, I couldn't find anything though.
|
On January 10 2012 12:21 jacosajh wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Yeah, mine is running at 4.5 at 1.32V ; I was running ~4.9 at 1.4V
The temps I got at 1.4V I wouldn't even think about 1.52V -_-
What do you have yours running at skyR?
4.4 at 1.24v
On January 10 2012 15:47 Molybdenum wrote:+ Show Spoiler +While we're talking sandy bridge OCs, do you guys have any thoughts on whether auto voltage or manually set is better? I have an MSI board (z68a-g45) so there's no offset vcore, just auto or pick a number. When I set the voltage, it never decreases, but auto sometimes pulls it up to around 1.35-1.36 in cpu-z (I set for 44 multiplier, it seems to hover around 4.0-4.2-4.3) during stress tests and will downvolt to around 1.0 V when not in use.
So what's better, having vcore around 1.25-1.3ish all the time (depending on what I can get for maybe 4.2-4.3) or allowing it to come down to 1.0 but peak around 1.35?
Or if there's settings to allow it to decrease when set, let me know, I couldn't find anything though.
That honestly depends on you >.>
|
On January 03 2012 11:41 GeZZa07 wrote:Hi guys, I'm building a predominantly gaming computer. Whilst I will be playing mostly starcraft 2, I would like to stream and play some more demanding games in the future. Definately would like to emphasise value for money and quality over performance. What is your budget? AUD$1000-1200. This includes the purchase of two monitors so I can dual screen, assistance on the monitor model would be appreciated What is your resolution? Whatever you guys recommend goes with the screens. What are you using it for? Mostly gaming, potentially some streaming. What is your upgrade cycle? Long upgrade cycle, hopefully - I wont be upgrading this rig for many years. When do you plan on building it? As soon as possible Do you plan on overclocking? No plans on overclocking unless you guys recommend it. Do you need an Operating System? Don't require any software Do you plan to add a second GPU for SLI or Crossfire? Don't plan on crossfiring unless recommended. Where are you buying your parts from? I will be buying from any sources that ship to Australia, or are locally based ( MSY - http://msy.com.au/ or CPL http://www.cpl.net.au/)This will be my first rig that I put together so I won't be able to do any complicated procedures. Many thanks,
Hi again
Thanks for all the feedback provided - I have finally decided to overclock my computer. Could you guys please critique my following build with that in mind? I have increased my budget to $1200 for just the rig (already purchased 2*U2412M). Suppliers include www.msy.com.au and www.pccasegear.com
Intel Core i5-2500K 3.3Ghz 1155pin Boxed CPU @ $230
AsRock Z68-Extreme3-Gen3 Intel Z68 USB3.0 1155pin @ $132
8G Kit 1600 G.Skill Ripjaws @ $52 (or will 1333 suffice)
Antec Neo Eco 520C 520W PSU @ $67
Coolermaster HAF RC-912 @ $107
Antec Neo Eco 520C 520W PSU @ $67
some random DVD burner
I was hoping to get suggestions for a suitable;
Heatsink - I have no idea about these
GPU - either the 6950 or 560ti ? It's like picking between pepsi and coke - I love them both!
HDD/SDD - I have been told that not getting an SSD for this rig would be a crime, but I'm still not sold on them (having never experienced one before). I was hoping for around 2TB in total capacity, what do you recommend?
Again - thanks to all the contributors (skyr,Myrmidon,Shikyo,Womwomwom ....etc) in this thread, you guys have been an invaluable resource for a total noob like me.
Cheers.
|
Hi Myrmidon,
Thank you for the excellent recommendation. As it stands, the price before shipping is what I wanted: 648 USD. It's a shame that shipping to Hawaii adds an additional 100 USD to the price, but one that I guess I'll have to swallow.
I'll be sleeping on it and figuring out what I want to do in the morning. Is there any corners that I can reasonably cut without sacrificing too much performance?
|
5930 Posts
On January 10 2012 17:37 GeZZa07 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 11:41 GeZZa07 wrote:Hi guys, I'm building a predominantly gaming computer. Whilst I will be playing mostly starcraft 2, I would like to stream and play some more demanding games in the future. Definately would like to emphasise value for money and quality over performance. What is your budget? AUD$1000-1200. This includes the purchase of two monitors so I can dual screen, assistance on the monitor model would be appreciated What is your resolution? Whatever you guys recommend goes with the screens. What are you using it for? Mostly gaming, potentially some streaming. What is your upgrade cycle? Long upgrade cycle, hopefully - I wont be upgrading this rig for many years. When do you plan on building it? As soon as possible Do you plan on overclocking? No plans on overclocking unless you guys recommend it. Do you need an Operating System? Don't require any software Do you plan to add a second GPU for SLI or Crossfire? Don't plan on crossfiring unless recommended. Where are you buying your parts from? I will be buying from any sources that ship to Australia, or are locally based ( MSY - http://msy.com.au/ or CPL http://www.cpl.net.au/)This will be my first rig that I put together so I won't be able to do any complicated procedures. Many thanks, Hi again Thanks for all the feedback provided - I have finally decided to overclock my computer. Could you guys please critique my following build with that in mind? I have increased my budget to $1200 for just the rig (already purchased 2*U2412M). Suppliers include www.msy.com.au and www.pccasegear.comIntel Core i5-2500K 3.3Ghz 1155pin Boxed CPU @ $230 AsRock Z68-Extreme3-Gen3 Intel Z68 USB3.0 1155pin @ $132 8G Kit 1600 G.Skill Ripjaws @ $52 (or will 1333 suffice) Antec Neo Eco 520C 520W PSU @ $67 Coolermaster HAF RC-912 @ $107 Antec Neo Eco 520C 520W PSU @ $67 some random DVD burner I was hoping to get suggestions for a suitable; Heatsink - I have no idea about these GPU - either the 6950 or 560ti ? It's like picking between pepsi and coke - I love them both! HDD/SDD - I have been told that not getting an SSD for this rig would be a crime, but I'm still not sold on them (having never experienced one before). I was hoping for around 2TB in total capacity, what do you recommend? Again - thanks to all the contributors (skyr,Myrmidon,Shikyo,Womwomwom ....etc) in this thread, you guys have been an invaluable resource for a total noob like me. Cheers.
For heatsinks, the best options are probably the Coolermaster 212+ or 212+ Evo. Not much point getting anything else.
Taking a quick look at PCCG's pricing, I'd get the GTX560 Ti without a doubt. Similar prices and performance as well as likely less driver issues in general. That's not to say that the HD6950 is a bad card but it performs like shit in really old games as well (think Crimson Skies old) as well as games that use OpenGL (everything that John Carmack makes).
If you want 2TB of space, the Western Digital Green 2TB is probably the most economical hard drive selling right now. SSDs are really cool once you experience it...personally I'd get the 120GB Intel 320 just because its Intel. Its not as fast as other SSDs but all SSDs are WOOOOOAAAH FASSST anyway. You dump media files on the 2TB hard drive and system files, or anything that needs to be fast, on the SSD.
Just a warning but CPL and MSY are both kind of shitty. PCCG is shitty as well but not in the "go away, fuck you" sort of way but "we'll take 4 weeks to get back to you on warranty" kind of shitty. Christ, it took them 5 weeks to send me a new hard drive cage.
|
On January 10 2012 17:39 sawedust wrote:+ Show Spoiler +[Hi Myrmidon, Thank you for the excellent recommendation. As it stands, the price before shipping is what I wanted: 648 USD. It's a shame that shipping to Hawaii adds an additional 100 USD to the price, but one that I guess I'll have to swallow. I'll be sleeping on it and figuring out what I want to do in the morning. Is there any corners that I can reasonably cut without sacrificing too much performance?
Not much you can cut from this. You can get a less expensive shittier case, a 400w unit such as CX430V2 or Antec Neo Eco, salvage a DVD burner from somewhere, and get a less expensive H61 board (Asrock H61M-VS) which doesn't come with USB3 or SATA 6Gbps - not a big deal if this is primarily for Starcraft II.
|
Remove the top three items and get the two that are crossed out instead, and that's like $90 less already. Choose between downgrading the motherboard further or getting a cheaper chassis, and you get to $100 or more in savings. I'd keep the Capstone though, as it's probably a little less likely to fail and have problems down the line, particularly compared to the CX V2. And it will save a tiny bit on electric bills from here on out: depending on usage, maybe a few dollars a year.
An i5-2400 at 3.1 GHz nominal is close to an i5-2500k at 3.3 GHz, since they're the same chip configured identically except for the frequency. An i5-2500k can readily be overclocked to 4.4-4.6 GHz on safe voltages and temperatures, so you're just loosing CPU speed there. You can roughly see the difference here:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i7-2600k-990x_9.html#sect2
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i7-2600k-990x_11.html#sect0
|
On January 10 2012 15:47 Molybdenum wrote:
While we're talking sandy bridge OCs, do you guys have any thoughts on whether auto voltage or manually set is better? I have an MSI board (z68a-g45) so there's no offset vcore, just auto or pick a number. When I set the voltage, it never decreases, but auto sometimes pulls it up to around 1.35-1.36 in cpu-z (I set for 44 multiplier, it seems to hover around 4.0-4.2-4.3) during stress tests and will downvolt to around 1.0 V when not in use.
So what's better, having vcore around 1.25-1.3ish all the time (depending on what I can get for maybe 4.2-4.3) or allowing it to come down to 1.0 but peak around 1.35?
Or if there's settings to allow it to decrease when set, let me know, I couldn't find anything though.
I'm in the same boat as you with an MSI mobo. I can do 4.3GHz @ 1.295 VCore, or with the multiplier set to 40 and Auto VCore it goes as high as 1.3 (if you can't tell, I set for myself an upper "safe" limit of 1.3V until I'm ready to replace the CPU because it feels slow, at which point I'll OC higher).
There's nothing you can do except buy ASUS or even ASRock/Gigabyte next time.
|
On January 10 2012 18:00 Womwomwom wrote:
For heatsinks, the best options are probably the Coolermaster 212+ or 212+ Evo. Not much point getting anything else.
I disagree. They are good options but I wouldn't call them "the best" - there are pros and cons. At the same price point of ~$30 (though usually a few $ more than the 212+), the Gelid Tranquillo or Xigmatek Gaia are noticeably quieter than those two and perform virtually the same. Corsair A50 can also be often found for about the same.
And I definitely believe it's worth spending $10-20 more for a better heatsink/fan if aiming for higher OC's and/or better acoustics.
|
The gaia doesnt really perform the same as a Hyper 212+.
Acoustics is up to the individual. Most of us just use headphones or the PC is out of the way so acoustics is often a secondary thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
