|
Hi teamliquid!
I tried today to overclock my new i5 2500k but I wasn't able to get it to the speed that I want it to be. It just crashed on startup. I searched on google on how you could overclock it and I followed this guide: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/01/07/how-to-overclock-the-intel-core-i5-2500k/1
How can I get to 4,5GHz?
My specs:
Intel i5 2500k
Gigabyte P67A-D3-B3
Kingston DD3 1333mhz 8GB
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/m0zj6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/W1IEB.jpg)
Is it normal seeing the DRAM Frequency like this?:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QD4qb.jpg)
Oh and by the way, I am running now at 3.9GHz on standard voltage, but I want the little extra 
/Evire
|
Did you try to go for higher voltage than the guide? (what do you have under load?) Some needs moar. Try going up slowly until ~1.35 and if still doesn't start there might be some other setting you need to look at.
And yes the dram is standard. You multiply it by two to get the frequency (dual channel), ~1333 in this case.
|
I've read reports of some people receiving "dud" 2500ks that just won't overclock high at all so you might just have a mediocre chip, but yeah definitely try increasing the voltage a tiny bit.
|
thanks for the help so far.
Gonna try increasing core voltage
Edit: What would be my normal core voltage?
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Tz1B5.jpg)
|
Remember that this processors have the turbo power saving feature, unless they are stressed they wont run at the highest clock you set because there's no need. Run Prime 92 or something to get the processor to 100% and then take a look at cpuz.
EDIT: Don't increase the voltage before trying this, because most 2500k's should run at least 4.5Ghz with 1.2v, 1.25 if you're unlucky .
|
1.3v should be safe but try smaller increments at first
|
can't find which one I should change. Check image above please
|
On October 03 2011 22:36 Pablols wrote:Remember that this processors have the turbo power saving feature, unless they are stressed they wont run at the highest clock you set because there's no need. Run Prime 92 or something to get the processor to 100% and then take a look at cpuz. EDIT: Don't increase the voltage before trying this, because most 2500k's should run at least 4.5Ghz with 1.2v, 1.25 if you're unlucky .
I'm strongly comforted you're giving advice on overclocking when you think it's called Prime 92.
@OP: While Intel doesn't seem to want to give a VID on SB for some reason, Bloomfield, on a larger process, was inside Intel spec until 1.375v. As in, you weren't technically over-volting them until you crossed that threshold.
It's fairly standard for BIOS automatics to be well below the maximum safe voltage. Mind you, That 1.375v number shouldn't be taken as the top of the VID for Sandy Bridge. Different lineups. Just providing an example.
Oh look, a Gigabyte BIOS. That's half your problem right there. Those things are fucking stupid. My friend can't get his i7 950 to perform on par with my i7 930, because the BIOS is horrendous.
And while generic guides can be ok, you're really better off finding a guide suited to your board and BIOS, it will make more sense.
|
On October 03 2011 22:52 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2011 22:36 Pablols wrote:Remember that this processors have the turbo power saving feature, unless they are stressed they wont run at the highest clock you set because there's no need. Run Prime 92 or something to get the processor to 100% and then take a look at cpuz. EDIT: Don't increase the voltage before trying this, because most 2500k's should run at least 4.5Ghz with 1.2v, 1.25 if you're unlucky . I'm strongly comforted you're giving advice on overclocking when you think it's called Prime 92. @OP: While Intel doesn't seem to want to give a VID on SB for some reason, Bloomfield, on a larger process, was inside Intel spec until 1.375v. As in, you weren't technically over-volting them until you crossed that threshold. It's fairly standard for BIOS automatics to be well below the maximum safe voltage. Mind you, That 1.375v number shouldn't be taken as the top of the VID for Sandy Bridge. Different lineups. Just providing an example. Oh look, a Gigabyte BIOS. That's half your problem right there. Those things are fucking stupid. My friend can't get his i7 950 to perform on par with my i7 930, because the BIOS is horrendous. And while generic guides can be ok, you're really better off finding a guide suited to your board and BIOS, it will make more sense.
You're suggestion a bios update maybe? Still cant find which one changes voltage :/ And I knew it is prime 95 so its no prob
Edit: Running 4,2GHz now without voltage changes. It says 1.056 V while running stress test in cpu-z
|
On October 03 2011 22:36 Pablols wrote:Remember that this processors have the turbo power saving feature, unless they are stressed they wont run at the highest clock you set because there's no need. Run Prime 92 or something to get the processor to 100% and then take a look at cpuz. EDIT: Don't increase the voltage before trying this, because most 2500k's should run at least 4.5Ghz with 1.2v, 1.25 if you're unlucky .
??
4,5 at 1.2 is certainly not the norm. Good luck with that.
|
if anyone really want to help, I can Skype with webcam
|
5930 Posts
A BIOS update might help but I doubt it. I don't bother with overclocking anymore (I just buy better shit these days, that's right) but it seems Gigabyte has omitted manual vcore manipulation. Probably because this board is like the cheapest stuff you can get.
I imagine Dynamic vcore will let you change around voltages but I'm not telling you to do that because I'm not certain. I guess you could Google around and see what settings someone else gets.
|
I had this same board. It appears there are two versions of them (excluding the revision before the SATA fix). If you look them up, where the HD AUDIO jack is located is different on the "same" boards. I didn't research it that much, because I was too busy looking up real OC stuff and didn't want to mess with researching other stuff I didn't have too. But from what I saw, at least one of the versions (the other version I didn't have) had the setting to change vcore.
I did do a BIOS update but it didn't do anything.
Just bolding for emphasis.
It is an entry-level P67, but still pretty stupid that you can't change the vcore because that defeats the whole purpose.
I just got a different board instead and I think you should too. Although I will say, that on that board with auto-settings, I magically got my 2500k to be "stable" at 4.8Ghz. I say "stable" because it was stable on prime95 for an hour or so, but didn't keep it long enough to do test for normal activity. I got an ASRock Pro3 P67 instead because there are a lot more people overclocking on that, and I just resorted to copying their settings to start off with, and eventually upgraded to an ASRock P67 Extreme6.
If you can still exchange it I would do that instead because it would be worth it in hours of headaches as I experienced.
An ASRock Pro3 P67 or ASUS P8P67 is within the same price range, and like I said above, there is a lot of community support for them so you can basically copy their settings and tweak a few things.
clunk.org.uk has a great sticky guide for the ASUS P8P67.
http://www.clunk.org.uk/forums/overclocking/39184-p67-sandy-bridge-overclocking-guide-beginners.html
|
On October 03 2011 22:56 Evire wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2011 22:52 JingleHell wrote:On October 03 2011 22:36 Pablols wrote:Remember that this processors have the turbo power saving feature, unless they are stressed they wont run at the highest clock you set because there's no need. Run Prime 92 or something to get the processor to 100% and then take a look at cpuz. EDIT: Don't increase the voltage before trying this, because most 2500k's should run at least 4.5Ghz with 1.2v, 1.25 if you're unlucky . I'm strongly comforted you're giving advice on overclocking when you think it's called Prime 92. @OP: While Intel doesn't seem to want to give a VID on SB for some reason, Bloomfield, on a larger process, was inside Intel spec until 1.375v. As in, you weren't technically over-volting them until you crossed that threshold. It's fairly standard for BIOS automatics to be well below the maximum safe voltage. Mind you, That 1.375v number shouldn't be taken as the top of the VID for Sandy Bridge. Different lineups. Just providing an example. Oh look, a Gigabyte BIOS. That's half your problem right there. Those things are fucking stupid. My friend can't get his i7 950 to perform on par with my i7 930, because the BIOS is horrendous. And while generic guides can be ok, you're really better off finding a guide suited to your board and BIOS, it will make more sense. You're suggestion a bios update maybe? Still cant find which one changes voltage :/ And I knew it is prime 95 so its no prob Edit: Running 4,2GHz now without voltage changes. It says 1.056 V while running stress test in cpu-z
Don't put words in my mouth. My suggestion is to buy parts for overclocking from brands that know what the fuck they're doing and make products that aren't cryptic, halfassed, and underpowered for the job.
I only suggest a BIOS update if you need a bugfix or added feature. Ever. And I benchmark for fun. I spend more time trying to get my machine to perform better than I do playing games that need the performance.
Besides, a BIOS update would only help if Gigabyte ever released a functional BIOS for overclocking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
