Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel - General › i7 920 / X58 VS. 4820k / X79 setup
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

i7 920 / X58 VS. 4820k / X79 setup - Page 4

post #31 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladcrooks View Post

And in 2 yrs his build will behind times once more biggrin.gif
in 2 years an i7 with 8threads will be hardly near an i7 with 12 threads
Wanted: [WTB] GPU upgrade
$210 (USD) or best offer
  
Reply
Wanted: [WTB] GPU upgrade
$210 (USD) or best offer
  
Reply
post #32 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangerscott View Post

I mainly just game so thats my main focus.

Im gonna have to do some research and see if I can get the 2000mhz ram to work.

Very few Bloomfields are 24/7 stable with a 4GHz+ uncore clock.

Westmere/Gulftown can get away with a 1.5x uncore/DDR ratio, so DDR3-2000 isn't terribly hard to get working with those, but it's just not going to happen with reasonable settings on most Bloomfields.
Primary
(15 items)
 
Secondary
(13 items)
 
In progress
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5820K @ 4.2/3.5GHz core/uncore, 1.175/1.15v Gigabyte X99 SOC Champion (F22n) Gigabyte AORUS GTX 1080 Ti (F3P) @ 2025/1485, 1... 4x4GiB Crucial @ 2667, 12-12-12-28-T1, 1.34v 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Plextor M6e 128GB (fw 1.06) M.2 (PCI-E 2.0 2x) 2x Crucial M4 256GB 4x WD Scorpio Black 500GB Noctua NH-D15 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional x64 SP1 BenQ BL3200PT Filco Majestouch Tenkeyless (MX Brown) Corsair RM1000x 
CaseMouseAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 Logitech G402 Realtek ALC1150 + M-Audio AV40 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5670 @ 4.4/3.2GHz core/uncore, 1.36 vcore, 1.2... Gigabyte X58A-UD5 r2.0 w/FF3mod10 BIOS Sapphire Fury Nitro OC+ @ 1053/500, 1.225vGPU/1... 2x Samsung MV-3V4G3D/US @ 2000, 10-11-11-30-T1,... 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1x Crucial BLT4G3D1608ET3LX0 @ 2000, 10-11-11-3... OCZ (Toshiba) Trion 150 120GB Hyundai Sapphire 120GB 3x Hitachi Deskstar 7k1000.C 1TB 
CoolingOSPowerCase
Noctua NH-D14 Windows 7 Pro x64 SP1 Antec TP-750 Fractal Design R5 
Audio
ASUS Xonar DS 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6800K @ 4.3/3.5GHz core/uncore, 1.36/1.2v ASRock X99 OC Formula (P3.10) GTX 780 (temporary) 4x4GiB Crucial DDR4-2400 @ 11-13-12-28-T2, 1.33v 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Intel 600p 256GB NVMe 2x HGST Travelstar 7k1000 1TB Corsair H55 (temporary) Windows Server 2016 Datacenter 
PowerCase
Seasonic SS-860XP2 Corsair Carbide Air 540 
  hide details  
Reply
Primary
(15 items)
 
Secondary
(13 items)
 
In progress
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5820K @ 4.2/3.5GHz core/uncore, 1.175/1.15v Gigabyte X99 SOC Champion (F22n) Gigabyte AORUS GTX 1080 Ti (F3P) @ 2025/1485, 1... 4x4GiB Crucial @ 2667, 12-12-12-28-T1, 1.34v 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Plextor M6e 128GB (fw 1.06) M.2 (PCI-E 2.0 2x) 2x Crucial M4 256GB 4x WD Scorpio Black 500GB Noctua NH-D15 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional x64 SP1 BenQ BL3200PT Filco Majestouch Tenkeyless (MX Brown) Corsair RM1000x 
CaseMouseAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 Logitech G402 Realtek ALC1150 + M-Audio AV40 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5670 @ 4.4/3.2GHz core/uncore, 1.36 vcore, 1.2... Gigabyte X58A-UD5 r2.0 w/FF3mod10 BIOS Sapphire Fury Nitro OC+ @ 1053/500, 1.225vGPU/1... 2x Samsung MV-3V4G3D/US @ 2000, 10-11-11-30-T1,... 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1x Crucial BLT4G3D1608ET3LX0 @ 2000, 10-11-11-3... OCZ (Toshiba) Trion 150 120GB Hyundai Sapphire 120GB 3x Hitachi Deskstar 7k1000.C 1TB 
CoolingOSPowerCase
Noctua NH-D14 Windows 7 Pro x64 SP1 Antec TP-750 Fractal Design R5 
Audio
ASUS Xonar DS 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6800K @ 4.3/3.5GHz core/uncore, 1.36/1.2v ASRock X99 OC Formula (P3.10) GTX 780 (temporary) 4x4GiB Crucial DDR4-2400 @ 11-13-12-28-T2, 1.33v 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Intel 600p 256GB NVMe 2x HGST Travelstar 7k1000 1TB Corsair H55 (temporary) Windows Server 2016 Datacenter 
PowerCase
Seasonic SS-860XP2 Corsair Carbide Air 540 
  hide details  
Reply
post #33 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firehawk View Post

x5650 should be around $150. I read through the entire linked thread, and the only person in there posting significant gains is the OP. Mild gains make sense, he's suggesting something life altering. Grain of salt recommended. wink.gif

I'm not suggesting anything "life altering". I was simply comparing my X58 Xeons [L5639+X5660] Hexa cores to X79 High-End i7- Hexa cores. I added my i7-960 since that's what I was using before and other CPUs for comparisons. That's the main reasoning for my topic and benchmarks. I'm not the only person to seeing significant gains. My inbox is filled with people speaking about their gains as well as my Steam account. People get their gains in different ways, but at least I show proof of all of my gains. If people focus solely on single core scores that's fine and I have no problem with that. I wanted to bring what I had to you guys since I was on the fence about upgrading to a high end X79 build. Thankfully I can put that $2000.00 X79 build towards other things now.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RX7-2nr View Post

I built this system with a 920 back when they were hot stuff. I recently got one of the X5650s to replace it. I got mine for $110 on a "Make Offer", I offered 100 and he countered to 110. I was nervous about getting one that wouldn't overclock, but this one hit 4.6 with almost no work at all.

Firehawk is right about the gains. I've tested it myself. As far as the core performance goes the X5650 is slightly faster, maybe 5%. In apps that are heavily threaded you will see a significant gain. I'm glad I got it, if for nothing else than something to new to tinker with. It is more powerful and MOAR COREZ is never a bad thing. I think I'll upgrade at Haswell E or maybe Skylake. I don't know, no rush though.

Temps are very very good compared to my 920. This CPU idles at 27, just a couple degrees over ambient. Full load is 55C. The 920 was hotter all the way around.

Wow and you came into my topic ranting about single core speeds and it turns out your Xeon was actually faster. Smh seen it all now. No wonder you are so neutral all of a sudden and less confrontational.. I'm glad you finally see the benefits for your own eyes. I honestly believe that single core speeds are very important, but being even if the Hexa core L5639 was a few percents slower [roughly 3%] I'm upgrading to a 6 core for $75 thumb.gif.......and I did.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangerscott View Post

I mainly just game so thats my main focus.

Im gonna have to do some research and see if I can get the 2000mhz ram to work. Tired of it just collecting dust. Im running bios G42 I believe since I believe its the only one thatll run 400 series and up.

Theres a buttload of these xeons on ebay. Ive found a good amount of xeons at the metal recycler but there all old 771 socket. Ill end up buying a 5660 and then start finding by the handful. LOL

That's what usually happens before you spend the money:). You'll probably start finding them left and right, I know you stated that you aren't planning on getting a Hexa core as you stated, but I think it could be worth it. Especially if you can find them for a cheap price. I thought the Quad cores were fine for 1080p gaming until Crysis 3 released and showed me how old my rig was lol. Even with 2 GTX 670s.

I'd also have to agree with the Bloomfields staying stable 24/7 above 4Ghz. I was lucky to eventually hit 4.1Ghz and 4.2Ghz with my i7-960. However, that took a lot of vcore and a lot of heat, so I usually hovered around 3.8Ghz-4Ghz to be safe. For most games Quads are fine for 1080p. Other games that relies heavily on the CPU probably won't perform so well. I completely understand not wanted to upgrade to another platform. That can get decently expensive very fast.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon 5660 @ 4.8Ghz [Highest OC 5.4Ghz] ASUS Sabertooth X58 AMD Fury X 24GB - 1600Mhz Triple Channel 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Seagate Barracuda 7200 1TB RAID 0 - B Seagate Barracuda 7200 1TB RAID 0 - B Seagate Barracuda 7200 1TB RAID 0 - C Seagate Barracuda 7200 1TB RAID 0 - C 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SSD 128GB RAID - A SSD 128GB RAID - A SSD 256GB  Antec Kuhler H2O 620 [Pull] 
OSMonitorPowerOther
Windows 10 Professional  Dual 24-inch Monitors EVGA SuperNOVA G2 1300W x2 Delta FFB1212EH-F00 Fan 4,000rpm  
Other
x4 Scythe Gentle Typhoon D1225C12BBAP-31 Fan 54... 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon 5660 @ 4.8Ghz [Highest OC 5.4Ghz] ASUS Sabertooth X58 AMD Fury X 24GB - 1600Mhz Triple Channel 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Seagate Barracuda 7200 1TB RAID 0 - B Seagate Barracuda 7200 1TB RAID 0 - B Seagate Barracuda 7200 1TB RAID 0 - C Seagate Barracuda 7200 1TB RAID 0 - C 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SSD 128GB RAID - A SSD 128GB RAID - A SSD 256GB  Antec Kuhler H2O 620 [Pull] 
OSMonitorPowerOther
Windows 10 Professional  Dual 24-inch Monitors EVGA SuperNOVA G2 1300W x2 Delta FFB1212EH-F00 Fan 4,000rpm  
Other
x4 Scythe Gentle Typhoon D1225C12BBAP-31 Fan 54... 
  hide details  
Reply
post #34 of 68
Are you sure you have to run the uncore so high for 1000mhz ram? Im fairly certain I was able to run my rams at 1000mhz on my old 965 without running a high uncore. I only remember because in those days I was afraid to give the imc more then 1.3v heheh. Guys were needing 1.4-1.5vtt or so for 4ghz uncore iirc. Im pretty sure I was running mine at around 3200, its been a few years so I could be mistaken.
post #35 of 68
2 fps more despite double the cores? The test only shows that cpus with more cores or HT performs better at 1080p with two high end gpus like two 7970 which is "ares II". We alreaddy know a quad core i5 bottlenecks two high end gpus in bf3/bf4 multiplayer. And if you would run two gpus why would you buy a budget cpu from the first beginning, knowing its limitations? Speaking of a single gpu, well then several tests show the differance is minimal between i5 4670k, i7 4770k and i7 49xx in games, specially if they are clocked. With one gpu only I think the differance will be small even in those games that use multicores. Also in "2 years" I hardly believe games will use 12 threads, 90% of all games hardly use 4 cores.
Edited by PachAz - 4/21/14 at 8:30am
My PC
(28 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 6700K Asus Z170 Pro Gaming KFA2 GTX 1080 Ti EXOC Corsair LPX 16GB (2x8), 2133Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Western Digital WD15EADS 1.5TB Samsung 840 250GB Crucial MX100 256GB Alphacool Eisblock XPX 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Alphacool ST30 360mm Alphacool ST30 140mm Alphacool Eisbecher 150mm Alphacool VPP655 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Masterkleer (10/13mm) Compression fittings (10/13mm) Corsair SP120 High Performance Phobya 6 Touch 30W 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Aquacomputer Kryographics Titan X (Pascal) Aquacomputer Active XCS backplate Watercool Heatkiller SW-X MB-Set Alphacool Monsta 240mm 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional Retail AOC Agon ag271qx CM Storm Quickfire Rappid-I Fractal Design Newton R3 1000W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Cooler Master Cosmos II Logitech G502 Steelseries QcK Logitech 5:1 
  hide details  
Reply
My PC
(28 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 6700K Asus Z170 Pro Gaming KFA2 GTX 1080 Ti EXOC Corsair LPX 16GB (2x8), 2133Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Western Digital WD15EADS 1.5TB Samsung 840 250GB Crucial MX100 256GB Alphacool Eisblock XPX 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Alphacool ST30 360mm Alphacool ST30 140mm Alphacool Eisbecher 150mm Alphacool VPP655 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Masterkleer (10/13mm) Compression fittings (10/13mm) Corsair SP120 High Performance Phobya 6 Touch 30W 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Aquacomputer Kryographics Titan X (Pascal) Aquacomputer Active XCS backplate Watercool Heatkiller SW-X MB-Set Alphacool Monsta 240mm 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional Retail AOC Agon ag271qx CM Storm Quickfire Rappid-I Fractal Design Newton R3 1000W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Cooler Master Cosmos II Logitech G502 Steelseries QcK Logitech 5:1 
  hide details  
Reply
post #36 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kana-Maru View Post

Wow and you came into my topic ranting about single core speeds and it turns out your Xeon was actually faster. Smh seen it all now. No wonder you are so neutral all of a sudden and less confrontational.. I'm glad you finally see the benefits for your own eyes. I honestly believe that single core speeds are very important, but being even if the Hexa core L5639 was a few percents slower [roughly 3%] I'm upgrading to a 6 core for $75 thumb.gif.......and I did.

Please don't bring this garbage into another thread. All I did was ask for results that you did not provide. Results that you went out of your way NOT to provide. You only ran heavily threaded benchmarks because it makes the Xeon look exceptionally high. You didn't run single core tests because it shows that the Xeons are still quite weak compared to a modern CPU. I was only "confrontational" in the least bit when you basically assaulted me for asking for the results. You acted as if you were trying to hide it or something. Keep your bias in your own misleading thread. For the 3rd or 4th time, I never said that a bloomfield was faster. You just assumed that since I was asking for single thread results that I was trying to expose the Xeon's weak spot and you got extremely defensive. I had to actually buy the processor to get the single thread results, because still to this day you have not posted comparable results from your X5660.
Edited by RX7-2nr - 4/21/14 at 10:03am
post #37 of 68
Hmmm... I guess your aren't as neutral as I thought.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RX7-2nr View Post

Please don't bring this garbage into another thread. I was only "confrontational" in the least bit when you basically assaulted me for asking for the results. You acted as if you were trying to hide it or something. Keep your bias in your own misleading thread. For the 3rd or 4th time, I never said that a bloomfield was faster. You just assumed that since I was asking for single thread results that I was trying to expose the Xeon's weak spot and you got extremely defensive.

That's funny since it's the "garbage" you started initially [appeared to be thread crapping after a few posts]. Now you are calling me bias because I posted "my" benchmark results? Wow lol. Exposing weak spots? Anything other than a Haswell-i7-4770K is WEAK man. 4770K has the best single core scores. That's what I told you countless times. The 4770K is the fastest as we all know. Your i7-920 was running 4.2Ghz while the Xeon L5639 was running 4.1Ghz and your i7-920 was 3.2%\3.5% faster in two single core test. So drop the bias stuff when you obviously ran your i7-920 at a higher clock rate instead of 4.1Ghz for comparison. Did you attempt to drop the speed to 4.1Ghz for a better comparison????? Nope. That my friend would make you bias and prejudice. [joking about the prejudice part smile.gif]

At the end of the day you were wrong since the Xeon scored better during the single core test clock for clock. So what's your i7-920 @ 4.1Ghz score vs the L5639 @ 4.1Ghz...we will never know I guess lol. Page 47 and post #466 says it all. Your higher clocked i7-920[4.2Ghz] in Cinebench R11.5 and R15 was 3.2% and 3.5% faster with the extra 100mhz obviously [L5639 4.1Ghz]. You got all defensive and just wanted to complain about something that day I guess. Overall the Xeon L5639 had a performance increase of 34% in the multi-core test with a lower clock. Probably would've been more if you would had ran your i7-920 @ 4.1Ghz.

Quote:
All I did was ask for results that you did not provide. Results that you went out of your way NOT to provide.

I asked you to post your results and you did. I then compared your results to my L5639 results I still had a copy of. So what are you talking about? I provided results for you and everyone saw that. In post #460 I personally asked you to post your results for comparisons. In post #466 I compared my results with what you posted so miss me with those lies. I never went out of my way to do not provide data\benchmarks. I try to be as helpful as possible and even compared the results for you. Once again did you bother to downclock the i7-920 to 4.1Ghz for a better comparison? No you decided to keep arguing. So please don't call it garbage and add all that extra when the proof is in my topic. You got the comparison so I don't see your issue.
Edited by Kana-Maru - 4/21/14 at 9:51am
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon 5660 @ 4.8Ghz [Highest OC 5.4Ghz] ASUS Sabertooth X58 AMD Fury X 24GB - 1600Mhz Triple Channel 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Seagate Barracuda 7200 1TB RAID 0 - B Seagate Barracuda 7200 1TB RAID 0 - B Seagate Barracuda 7200 1TB RAID 0 - C Seagate Barracuda 7200 1TB RAID 0 - C 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SSD 128GB RAID - A SSD 128GB RAID - A SSD 256GB  Antec Kuhler H2O 620 [Pull] 
OSMonitorPowerOther
Windows 10 Professional  Dual 24-inch Monitors EVGA SuperNOVA G2 1300W x2 Delta FFB1212EH-F00 Fan 4,000rpm  
Other
x4 Scythe Gentle Typhoon D1225C12BBAP-31 Fan 54... 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon 5660 @ 4.8Ghz [Highest OC 5.4Ghz] ASUS Sabertooth X58 AMD Fury X 24GB - 1600Mhz Triple Channel 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Seagate Barracuda 7200 1TB RAID 0 - B Seagate Barracuda 7200 1TB RAID 0 - B Seagate Barracuda 7200 1TB RAID 0 - C Seagate Barracuda 7200 1TB RAID 0 - C 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SSD 128GB RAID - A SSD 128GB RAID - A SSD 256GB  Antec Kuhler H2O 620 [Pull] 
OSMonitorPowerOther
Windows 10 Professional  Dual 24-inch Monitors EVGA SuperNOVA G2 1300W x2 Delta FFB1212EH-F00 Fan 4,000rpm  
Other
x4 Scythe Gentle Typhoon D1225C12BBAP-31 Fan 54... 
  hide details  
Reply
post #38 of 68
Neutral? No- not when you bring this up again. I made myself very clear in your thread. I could care less about your L5639's scores. I (and pretty much your entire target audience who is looking to upgrade from a bloomfield) is looking at your X5660 results. I was interested in the X5650, not a L5639. At the end of the day your entire thread still only shows glowing 12 thread benchmark results. My 920 was ran at 4.2 because it was ran daily at 4.2, I didn't adjust the clocks for that run. I wouldnt have adjusted it to 4.1 to compare to your L5639 because I was not interested in a comparison to that CPU anyways. I don't see why you keep mentioning the 4770k. It's not even part of this discussion. So no CPU's core performance matters since the 4770k is the most powerful? I guess I just don't see the relevance of it to me looking to compare the 920 to the 5660. And actually no, "anything except a 4770k" is not weak. I'm not quite sure how you drew that conclusion, but it's utterly false.


I believe my exact words that started this whole debacle was-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RX7-2nr View Post

I'd like to see how a 4 ghz x5650 stacks up against a 4 ghz i7 920.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kana-Maru View Post


At the end of the day you were wrong since the Xeon scored better during the single core test clock for clock.

I don't understand this sentence. I was wrong since the Xeon was faster? For the 4th or 5th time now, again, seriously I don't know why I have to keep repeating this, I mean really are we reading the same forum?, I never said my 920 or any bloomfield was faster. I never made the implication either.

Quote the line where I did.

You keep on going on about that, in that thread and now in this one. Like I was trying to make it into some kind of contest. I just dont get it. I mean how do you take me asking for a comparative benchmark run and turn it into "My bloomfield is so much faster than those server processors."
Edited by RX7-2nr - 4/21/14 at 10:13am
post #39 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangerscott View Post

Man I've tried about everything to hit 4ghz. I'm at 3.8ghz with +40mv and ram at 1523mhz. I'm actually scoring around 500 points lower on 3dmark firestorm now. LOL

I've gone high on voltage, different ram speeds, timings, etc, etc. Even followed this guide here --

https://forum.xcpus.com/f87/foxconn-blood-rage-overclocking-guide-16727.html

I have a D0 920. Default voltage in the bios shows 1.29xxx which may be high since I've seen 1.23 shows on the guys pic. I don't know. I've seen old thread with people hitting 4.6ghz with hardly any problems.


I was at 4ghz with my ram way down to 1200mhz and it booted into windows but froze up when I tried to start 3dmark.

Hi,

I have been using a 920 DO at 4GHz for years. There was always a minor stability prob. Recently I dove into the bios again. Had a game that would crash occasionally. I was able to find an answer to my issue by googling the crap out of it again, plus I am more aware of chit several years later.

Heres what I have come to understand. QPI has a limitation and the uncore multiplier must be set properly so that the NB freq and QPI link freq are in proper relationship.

My X58 bclk is at 211 with x19 multi. This gives me 4GHz cpu speed. I cannot raise the bclk any higher because the QPI multi is at 36, giving me a QPI of 7.5GTS. As the QPI approaches 8GTs, the OC fails. QPI cannot function as it approaches 8.0, a design limitation.

My 2000MHz ram is at 1668MHz, using a x8 multi. The rub here is that the uncore freq is most stable when it is x2 the ram, only x2. As the NB freq approachs a 1 to 1 ratio with the QPI link freq, instability increases. For a long time my NB freq was the same as the QPI link freq, this was my instability, a design limitatation.

In order to get my ram at 2000MHz I tried a bclk of 200, ram multi x10. This was a no go because with an QPI multi of x36, it pushed the QPI past 8.0. So a 4GHz cpu with 2000MHz ram, the QPI mobo unstable. With a 211 bclk, a ram multi of x8, an uncore multi of x16, I get stability.

For me stability = 4GHz cpu, 1668MHz ram, 7.5GTS QPI. NB freq at 3375.7MHz, QPI link freq at 3797.6MHz My cpu at 1.39v, ram at 1.65v.

I did generalize a bit here, cannot remember exactly at this point without going into settings and such, forgive me if I also use terminology wrong, but I hope you get the drift.
I ran prime 95 for 4hrs, no errors. I no longer crash in game any more. After getting right relationships I was able to use turbo mode for ram, getting better timings.

I plan on waiting till 2016 for a new build, things are gonna hit the fan by then and my current machine works great.

good luck
cpu-zOC.jpg 137k .jpg file
Edited by spiney - 4/21/14 at 11:03am
post #40 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by spiney View Post

Hi,

I have been using a 920 DO at 4GHz for years. There was always a minor stability prob. Recently I dove into the bios again. Had a game that would crash occasionally. I was able to find an answer to my issue by googling the crap out of it again, plus I am more aware of chit several years later.

Heres what I have come to understand. QPI has a limitation and the uncore multiplier must be set properly so that the NB freq and QPI link freq are in proper relationship.

My X58 bclk is at 211. This gives me 4GHz cpu speed. I cannot raise the bclk any higher because the QPI multi is at 36, giving me a QPI of 7.5GTS. As the QPI approaches 8GTs, the OC fails. QPI cannot function as it approaches 8.0, a design limitation.

My 2000MHz ram is at 1668MHz, using a x8 multi. The rub here is that the uncore freq is most stable when it is x2 the ram, only x2. As the NB freq approachs a 1 to 1 ratio with the QPI link freq, instability increases. For a long time my NB freq was the same as the QPI link freq, this was my instability, a design limitatation.

In order to get my ram at 2000MHz I tried a bclk of 200, ram multi x10. This was a no go because with an QPI multi of x36, it pushed the QPI past 8.0. So a 4GHz cpu with 2000MHz ram, the QPI mobo unstable. With a 211 bclk, a ram multi of x8, an uncore multi of x16, I get stability.

For me stability = 4GHz cpu, 1668MHz ram, 7.5GTS QPI. NB freq at 3375.7MHz, QPI link freq at 3797.6MHz My cpu at 1.39v, ram at 1.65v.

I did generalize a bit here, cannot remember exactly at this point without going into settings and such, forgive me if I also use terminology wrong, but I hope you get the drift.
I ran prime 95 for 4hrs, no errors. I no longer crash in game any more. After getting right relationships I was able to use turbo mode for ram, getting better timings.

I plan on waiting till 2016 for a new build, things are gonna hit the fan by then and my current machine works great.

good luck
cpu-zOC.jpg 137k .jpg file

You shouldn't have to run that high a bclk to get 4.0. Have you tried making more use of your multipliers? 191x21 or 200x20.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Intel - General
Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel - General › i7 920 / X58 VS. 4820k / X79 setup