Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel - General › [Official] - Xeon X5660-X58 Review & Discussion [and Xeon L5639 benchmarks inside]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Official] - Xeon X5660-X58 Review & Discussion [and Xeon L5639 benchmarks inside] - Page 258

Poll Results: Was my review helpful?

 
  • 95% (242)
    Yes
  • 4% (12)
    No
254 Total Votes  
post #2571 of 7917
CPU-Z is tiny and works for me - try that.

As for the rest, I'll pitch in with some help ASAP, but I'm a bit tied up right now.

I'd definitely start by taking 1/2 the ram out and one video card. When it's stable like that, the you can go back one bit at a time.

I can report I seem to have Uncore at 2700 for about 1.255VTT and Core at 3.57 [170*<21, Turbo off, other features on] for 1.22-1.232V Loaded in Windows via CPU-Z.

YMMV
post #2572 of 7917
raise your cpu vtt one step at a time until it boots to windows and is stable. people here says it shouldn't go over 1.35v, i have mine at 1.3625@3600mhz uncore.
post #2573 of 7917
It's once again me;)

for those who forgot my spec:

2x X5670 @ 4319 Mhz @ 1.329 V
Evga sr2
12Gb (6 x 2) 1440mhz 8-8-8-24 1T 1.55V
GTX 670 @ 770
Antec HCP 1000W


I've got a question for u. Is it safe to rise uncore higher than 1.5 of memory frequency. I've read somwhere that its safe only if VTT voltage is lover than 1.35.

I had Uncore set to 2160mhz( 1440 x 1.5) but i tried higher uncore and i see that it has a pretty huge impact on performance(without increasing the voltages).

I forgot my VTT voltage is 1.3V
Edited by intelchief - 1/11/15 at 3:25am
post #2574 of 7917
It's quite safe to have uncore between 1.5x and 2.0x memory frequency.

The warning is the combination of QPI/Vtt of > 1.35V and Uncore > 2x memory frequency.
post #2575 of 7917
What im observing right now, is that with higher uncore ferqunecy, performance is better and i need less vcore O_o. Before i wasnt able to even start torturę test with lower vcore. Right now its running for more than 5 minutes.

So assuming that my QPI/Vtt is set straight to 1.3V , can i push uncore higher?
post #2576 of 7917
Fooling with my uncore just recently and I think it's somewhere above 3x my memory speed. Uncore at 1.25, vcore at 1.34v, DRAM at 1.60v, cpu at 4.213GHz

All voltages determined with a voltage meter on terminals from the motherboard, thank you
Edited by OCmember - 1/11/15 at 8:42pm
     
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 970 between 4 - 4.4GHz Gigabyte UD7 Rev 2.0 EVGA GTX 1070 FE 2000MHz CL8.8.8.24 1T tRFC 88 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung Evo 128Gb OCZ VertexLE 100Gb Megahalems  Windows 10 Pro 64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus VG248QE Corsair K70  EVGA Supernova T2 1000W Lian Li PC-A20 
MouseAudio
Sidewinder MX5 Creative Zx 
  hide details  
Reply
     
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 970 between 4 - 4.4GHz Gigabyte UD7 Rev 2.0 EVGA GTX 1070 FE 2000MHz CL8.8.8.24 1T tRFC 88 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung Evo 128Gb OCZ VertexLE 100Gb Megahalems  Windows 10 Pro 64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus VG248QE Corsair K70  EVGA Supernova T2 1000W Lian Li PC-A20 
MouseAudio
Sidewinder MX5 Creative Zx 
  hide details  
Reply
post #2577 of 7917
Well i have one more question (for now;)). When you're testing stability with IBT, why you're using only high option? (why not very high or maximum? When i see your screenshots with results there is always"high"
post #2578 of 7917
Interesting Q.

I don't, I test with Maximum. My chip does not seem to want to do higher than 4.0 in this config. Though I think a better motherboard might help, somewhat.

I wonder if everyone's overclocks here would pass 10 loops on Maximum?

Try it - and keep and eye on those temps wink.gif
post #2579 of 7917
One reason might be - to gain a comparable figure for GFlops. With the machine set up the exact same way, run the various benchmarks after each other and you'll find the figure changes. Hyperthreading also makes a very large difference to the figure.
post #2580 of 7917
Quote:
Originally Posted by intelchief View Post

Well i have one more question (for now;)). When you're testing stability with IBT, why you're using only high option? (why not very high or maximum? When i see your screenshots with results there is always"high"
I test both Very High and Maximum.
Very High gives me the highest scores and highest temps with Hyper Threading enabled (low 80's GF, 63-69 deg C at VH and about 60 GF, 63-67 deg C at Max), while Maximum gives the highest scores with Hyper Threading disabled (90-91 GF at VH and 91-92 GF at Max).
I use ten passes with Very High for a quick stability test, before I move on to 10 IBT Maximum and long runs of Prime95.
The final test is gaming, but I have yet to see my computer unstable after passing IBT and Prime95. smile.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Intel - General
Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel - General › [Official] - Xeon X5660-X58 Review & Discussion [and Xeon L5639 benchmarks inside]