Originally Posted by Mummel
Hey TD, I just wanted to say thanks for your help. Recall I posted last week regarding my system's instability (it just happened all of a sudden, continuous crashing). Well you were right. It was a RAM issue. I RMA'ed my RAM to GSkill and it took exactly 1 week to get two brand new sticks back. What great customer service. I am very pleased.
I ran them in MEMTEST for about 2 hours and no errors. I am assuming they are good to go. Will test for 24 hours down the road when I have time.
I also watched your vids again to make sure I have the right BIOS settings. I tried some various configs overclocking wise. Its been months since I've looked at it but here were my results.
Full auto (3.9ghz):
-V core = 1.26v
-max temps = 68C
-Average FPS in Handbrake (5min test clip) = 87.8
-power draw from wall = 1.12 amps on load
Your settings (4.5ghz):
-V core = 1.256v (overshot by 0.006v)
-max temps = 67C
-average FPS = 98.6 (a 12.3% increase in encoding speeds using just about the exact same power settings)
-power draw = 1.22 amps on load (8.9% more power drawn)
My max stable overclock (4.7ghz)
-V core = 1.35v
-max temps = 82C (22.3% higher)
-average FPS = 101.8 (a 3.2% increase over your settings)
-power draw = 1.48 amps (21.3% more that your settings)
So in short, to get 3.2% faster encoding times (the primary purpose of my PC), I need to run 22.3% hotter and spend 21.3% more on electricity per month than your standard 4.5ghz overclock. This is a serious *** to me? I dont get why these chips scale so poorly with increases in vcore. So I am much happier running at 4.5ghz and waiting 3% longer for my encodes, but saving 21% on my electricity bill and extending the life of my chip. Also, an increase in 8% of electricity bill from the full auto settings is worth it for 12.3% faster encoding times. So to me, it looks like 4.5ghz is the smart choice.
Is 1.25v basically the max vcore before the next incremental marginal benefit from a bump up in vcore falls off the map? Thanks again for your help!