Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › Kaby Lake Overclocking Guide [With Statistics]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Kaby Lake Overclocking Guide [With Statistics] - Page 212

post #2111 of 2915
Quote:
Originally Posted by garyd9 View Post


Yes. This. It would be reasonable to guess (without seeing any data) that if a chip is able to function with less voltage at Intel's max all core frequency, that it might also be a "better chip." However, without any supporting data, it's only a guess. This could be useful for some, as they'd be able to stick a new processor in a machine and instantly read the VID at stock settings. From there, they MIGHT be able to make reasonable assumptions about the level of overclocking that the particular chip might reach.
If your running all cores at 4500, you aren't running at stock clocks. Intel i7-7700k turbo maxes at 4400 for 4 cores. What is being brought up in the discussion, however, is the possibility that VID at 4400x4 isn't constant per chip. This is different from what I'm seeing on my own platform, which is.. confusing.
Consider that Intel programs a chip specific VID table into each processor based on some internal testing. Assume two processors with identical clock speeds and load; if "Processor A" has a VID of 1.16 and "Processor B" has a VID of 1.25, then Intel determined that Processor A needs less voltage to perform stability for that speed/load. That, in turn, suggests that Processor A _might_ require less voltage at overclocked frequencies as well. (The whole point of charting the data would be to determine if this is actually the case, and then to potential use the data to predict better overclocking processors.)
No, that proves nothing of the sort. It only reflect that Intel sets the VID conservatively with allowances for vdroop, low performing voltage regulation, etc. Your statement is similar to me saying that if I let my Asus motherboard o/c my chip for me, it sets voltage to 1.4 with a 48 multiplier, and therefore my chip must require 1.4v for 4.8GHz. Asus didn't check MY chip, and their built in profiles assume processors in the lower 25 percentile.

Please pardon me while I delve into a bit of sarcasm...

I'm getting the very strong impression that folks in this thread don't actually want to collect data to determine if VID at stock can have any correlation to overclocking ability. Instead of looking at it and saying "it might or might not, but it doesn't hurt to look to try and determine if it does", most people are rejecting it out of hand and even attacking it. So far, no one has made a reasonable argument as to why there'd be harm in collecting the data.

Hey, that's fine. I was under the (seemingly false) impression that the chart (and therefore this thread) was about trying to collect information about overclocking and not a contest. It seemed to me that the VID at a known state would be a better indicator of overclockability than.. a batch code.

Take care
Gary

I'm interested to know this as well.

What I imagine is that a chip with a low stock VID will indeed need less volts going up the multis. There would probably be a point for each chip where they start to hit a voltage wall which would likely be different for each chip. So some chips with a very low VID might get easily to 4.9 and then start to require a lot more voltage for 5.0+ whereas other chips that has a bit higher VID at stock might not hit a wall until a bit later.

Just guessing here, but I'll happily add my data to a list if someone starts one.
post #2112 of 2915
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by garyd9 View Post



Yes. This. It would be reasonable to guess (without seeing any data) that if a chip is able to function with less voltage at Intel's max all core frequency, that it might also be a "better chip." However, without any supporting data, it's only a guess. This could be useful for some, as they'd be able to stick a new processor in a machine and instantly read the VID at stock settings. From there, they MIGHT be able to make reasonable assumptions about the level of overclocking that the particular chip might reach.
If your running all cores at 4500, you aren't running at stock clocks. Intel i7-7700k turbo maxes at 4400 for 4 cores. What is being brought up in the discussion, however, is the possibility that VID at 4400x4 isn't constant per chip. This is different from what I'm seeing on my own platform, which is.. confusing.
Consider that Intel programs a chip specific VID table into each processor based on some internal testing. Assume two processors with identical clock speeds and load; if "Processor A" has a VID of 1.16 and "Processor B" has a VID of 1.25, then Intel determined that Processor A needs less voltage to perform stability for that speed/load. That, in turn, suggests that Processor A _might_ require less voltage at overclocked frequencies as well. (The whole point of charting the data would be to determine if this is actually the case, and then to potential use the data to predict better overclocking processors.)
No, that proves nothing of the sort. It only reflect that Intel sets the VID conservatively with allowances for vdroop, low performing voltage regulation, etc. Your statement is similar to me saying that if I let my Asus motherboard o/c my chip for me, it sets voltage to 1.4 with a 48 multiplier, and therefore my chip must require 1.4v for 4.8GHz. Asus didn't check MY chip, and their built in profiles assume processors in the lower 25 percentile.

Please pardon me while I delve into a bit of sarcasm...

I'm getting the very strong impression that folks in this thread don't actually want to collect data to determine if VID at stock can have any correlation to overclocking ability. Instead of looking at it and saying "it might or might not, but it doesn't hurt to look to try and determine if it does", most people are rejecting it out of hand and even attacking it. So far, no one has made a reasonable argument as to why there'd be harm in collecting the data.

Hey, that's fine. I was under the (seemingly false) impression that the chart (and therefore this thread) was about trying to collect information about overclocking and not a contest. It seemed to me that the VID at a known state would be a better indicator of overclockability than.. a batch code.

Take care
Gary

If by 'folks in this thread' you mean 'one guy you quoted' then yeah...

 

I dunno, if I can grab a sample of 10 Vids and it seems to show something then I can add a column for that.

   
Celapaleis (2013)
(16 items)
 
CPURAMHard DriveHard Drive
7600k @ 5.197/1.392 1.392v x2 8gb GSkill Trident Z 3600 @ 3804 15-15-15-32-2T Samsung 950 Pro 512gb (Undelwalt) WD Red 2tb (Pack Yak II) 
Keyboard
Kmac 2 (Brown Switch, Gon PCB, Red LED, Clear Top) 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 6600k Delid @ 4.848/4.848 Asus z170 Hero MSI GTX 980ti @ 1499/4082 1.25v/134% Power 2 x 8gb Gskills Ripjaws V 3131 16-16-16-32 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung Pro Series 840 256gb (Celapaleis) 1 TB Samsung Drive (Pack Yak) Samsung Pro Series 850 256gb (Celapaleis Reprise) Phoenix Down (External Backup) 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
Noctua D14 Kraken x61 Push-Pull for GPU Windows 10 Pro Catleap 2560x1440 @ 60hz 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
CM Storm Trigger Brown Switches EVGA Supernova 1000w P2 Corsair 540 Air Razer Abyssus 
Mouse PadAudioAudioAudio
Steelseries QcK Mini Blue Yeti Microphone Objective Dac + Amp Sescom AB Switch 
AudioAudioAudioAudio
Krk Rokit 6 G2 x2 Radioshack Ground Loop Isolator (For Rokits) Wooaudio Aluminum Headphone Stand Sennheiser HD 800 
AudioOther
Logitech c920 Webcam NZXT Sentry Mix 2 Fan Controller 
  hide details  
Reply
   
Celapaleis (2013)
(16 items)
 
CPURAMHard DriveHard Drive
7600k @ 5.197/1.392 1.392v x2 8gb GSkill Trident Z 3600 @ 3804 15-15-15-32-2T Samsung 950 Pro 512gb (Undelwalt) WD Red 2tb (Pack Yak II) 
Keyboard
Kmac 2 (Brown Switch, Gon PCB, Red LED, Clear Top) 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 6600k Delid @ 4.848/4.848 Asus z170 Hero MSI GTX 980ti @ 1499/4082 1.25v/134% Power 2 x 8gb Gskills Ripjaws V 3131 16-16-16-32 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung Pro Series 840 256gb (Celapaleis) 1 TB Samsung Drive (Pack Yak) Samsung Pro Series 850 256gb (Celapaleis Reprise) Phoenix Down (External Backup) 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
Noctua D14 Kraken x61 Push-Pull for GPU Windows 10 Pro Catleap 2560x1440 @ 60hz 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
CM Storm Trigger Brown Switches EVGA Supernova 1000w P2 Corsair 540 Air Razer Abyssus 
Mouse PadAudioAudioAudio
Steelseries QcK Mini Blue Yeti Microphone Objective Dac + Amp Sescom AB Switch 
AudioAudioAudioAudio
Krk Rokit 6 G2 x2 Radioshack Ground Loop Isolator (For Rokits) Wooaudio Aluminum Headphone Stand Sennheiser HD 800 
AudioOther
Logitech c920 Webcam NZXT Sentry Mix 2 Fan Controller 
  hide details  
Reply
post #2113 of 2915
Quote:
Originally Posted by garyd9 View Post


Yes. This. It would be reasonable to guess (without seeing any data) that if a chip is able to function with less voltage at Intel's max all core frequency, that it might also be a "better chip." However, without any supporting data, it's only a guess. This could be useful for some, as they'd be able to stick a new processor in a machine and instantly read the VID at stock settings. From there, they MIGHT be able to make reasonable assumptions about the level of overclocking that the particular chip might reach.

Unfortunately that will never be the case, as the VID has been proven to vary from board to board for the same cpu and even be a different figure on the same board, depending on the Voltage method used.
Quote:
Originally Posted by garyd9 View Post

If your running all cores at 4500, you aren't running at stock clocks.

It is stock clocks with Mutlicore Enhancement enabled.

Quote:
Originally Posted by garyd9 View Post

Intel i7-7700k turbo maxes at 4400 for 4 cores. What is being brought up in the discussion, however, is the possibility that VID at 4400x4 isn't constant per chip. This is different from what I'm seeing on my own platform, which is.. confusing.

Consider that Intel programs a chip specific VID table into each processor based on some internal testing. Assume two processors with identical clock speeds and load; if "Processor A" has a VID of 1.16 and "Processor B" has a VID of 1.25, then Intel determined that Processor A needs less voltage to perform stability for that speed/load. That, in turn, suggests that Processor A _might_ require less voltage at overclocked frequencies as well. (The whole point of charting the data would be to determine if this is actually the case, and then to potential use the data to predict better overclocking processors.)

No it does not suggest that at all. When it comes to overclocking a cpu, every single cpu performs differently and requires different amounts of voltages when being overclocked and it is irrelevant of the VID.
Quote:
Originally Posted by garyd9 View Post

No, that proves nothing of the sort. It only reflect that Intel sets the VID conservatively with allowances for vdroop, low performing voltage regulation, etc. Your statement is similar to me saying that if I let my Asus motherboard o/c my chip for me, it sets voltage to 1.4 with a 48 multiplier, and therefore my chip must require 1.4v for 4.8GHz. Asus didn't check MY chip, and their built in profiles assume processors in the lower 25 percentile.

Your example of your Asus motherboard overclocking your chip for you, has nothing to do with the VID reading and is not similar to what I said about the fact that since the overclocking voltage is below the VID voltage, that then you cannot ascertain any correlation between VID and actual volts used for overclocking. In your example you are referring to the boards AUTO RULES not the VID, that are setting the voltage based on what Asus has programmed into its boards bios rules, as to what they think is a safe voltage for that overclock. The AUTO RULES do not change the VID.
Quote:
Originally Posted by garyd9 View Post


Please pardon me while I delve into a bit of sarcasm...

I'm getting the very strong impression that folks in this thread don't actually want to collect data to determine if VID at stock can have any correlation to overclocking ability. Instead of looking at it and saying "it might or might not, but it doesn't hurt to look to try and determine if it does", most people are rejecting it out of hand and even attacking it. So far, no one has made a reasonable argument as to why there'd be harm in collecting the data.

Hey, that's fine. I was under the (seemingly false) impression that the chart (and therefore this thread) was about trying to collect information about overclocking and not a contest. It seemed to me that the VID at a known state would be a better indicator of overclockability than.. a batch code.

I am not objecting to you performing your tests, you are free to perform whatever tests you like, I was merely asking why you were doing it and that from actual experience of having overclocked many cpus and having found that the VID is not even anywhere near close to the actual voltages used, when overclocking to higher frequencies, that I think what you are doing is a pointless exercise and that it will not show any way to get a true indication or true measure of a cpu's overclocking ability and voltage required, as each cpu is completely different to the next and no two are ever alike.

Take a look at the following thread and you will see how the VID, does not have a bearing on the voltage used when overclocking, for there are examples in that thread of two cpu's with the exact same VID and they require different voltages when being overclocked. There are also examples of one cpu with a lower VID requiring more voltage when being overclocked to a certain frequency, than a cpu with a higher VID

http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=165308

Edited by tknight - 4/23/17 at 1:39pm
WetBench
(9 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 6700K Asrock Z170M OC Formula 980ti SLI Trident Z - 3600mhz 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
Samsung 950 Pro 512GB Custom Water Loop Windows 10 Corsair 1200i 
Case
Praxis Wetbench 
  hide details  
Reply
WetBench
(9 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 6700K Asrock Z170M OC Formula 980ti SLI Trident Z - 3600mhz 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
Samsung 950 Pro 512GB Custom Water Loop Windows 10 Corsair 1200i 
Case
Praxis Wetbench 
  hide details  
Reply
post #2114 of 2915
Quote:
Originally Posted by garyd9 View Post


Yes. This. It would be reasonable to guess (without seeing any data) that if a chip is able to function with less voltage at Intel's max all core frequency, that it might also be a "better chip." However, without any supporting data, it's only a guess. This could be useful for some, as they'd be able to stick a new processor in a machine and instantly read the VID at stock settings. From there, they MIGHT be able to make reasonable assumptions about the level of overclocking that the particular chip might reach.
If your running all cores at 4500, you aren't running at stock clocks. Intel i7-7700k turbo maxes at 4400 for 4 cores. What is being brought up in the discussion, however, is the possibility that VID at 4400x4 isn't constant per chip. This is different from what I'm seeing on my own platform, which is.. confusing.
Consider that Intel programs a chip specific VID table into each processor based on some internal testing. Assume two processors with identical clock speeds and load; if "Processor A" has a VID of 1.16 and "Processor B" has a VID of 1.25, then Intel determined that Processor A needs less voltage to perform stability for that speed/load. That, in turn, suggests that Processor A _might_ require less voltage at overclocked frequencies as well. (The whole point of charting the data would be to determine if this is actually the case, and then to potential use the data to predict better overclocking processors.)
No, that proves nothing of the sort. It only reflect that Intel sets the VID conservatively with allowances for vdroop, low performing voltage regulation, etc. Your statement is similar to me saying that if I let my Asus motherboard o/c my chip for me, it sets voltage to 1.4 with a 48 multiplier, and therefore my chip must require 1.4v for 4.8GHz. Asus didn't check MY chip, and their built in profiles assume processors in the lower 25 percentile.

Please pardon me while I delve into a bit of sarcasm...

I'm getting the very strong impression that folks in this thread don't actually want to collect data to determine if VID at stock can have any correlation to overclocking ability. Instead of looking at it and saying "it might or might not, but it doesn't hurt to look to try and determine if it does", most people are rejecting it out of hand and even attacking it. So far, no one has made a reasonable argument as to why there'd be harm in collecting the data.

Hey, that's fine. I was under the (seemingly false) impression that the chart (and therefore this thread) was about trying to collect information about overclocking and not a contest. It seemed to me that the VID at a known state would be a better indicator of overclockability than.. a batch code.

Take care
Gary

Im also interested in that. Ill also be happy to apload my data if a colum will be added.
Btw batch nr is kinda also a good indicator , i mean it helps you if the store like Microcenter has about 20 cpus in front of you and lets you pick one you want....
post #2115 of 2915
Quote:
Originally Posted by garyd9 View Post


Yes. This. It would be reasonable to guess (without seeing any data) that if a chip is able to function with less voltage at Intel's max all core frequency, that it might also be a "better chip." However, without any supporting data, it's only a guess. This could be useful for some, as they'd be able to stick a new processor in a machine and instantly read the VID at stock settings. From there, they MIGHT be able to make reasonable assumptions about the level of overclocking that the particular chip might reach.
If your running all cores at 4500, you aren't running at stock clocks. Intel i7-7700k turbo maxes at 4400 for 4 cores. What is being brought up in the discussion, however, is the possibility that VID at 4400x4 isn't constant per chip. This is different from what I'm seeing on my own platform, which is.. confusing.
Consider that Intel programs a chip specific VID table into each processor based on some internal testing. Assume two processors with identical clock speeds and load; if "Processor A" has a VID of 1.16 and "Processor B" has a VID of 1.25, then Intel determined that Processor A needs less voltage to perform stability for that speed/load. That, in turn, suggests that Processor A _might_ require less voltage at overclocked frequencies as well. (The whole point of charting the data would be to determine if this is actually the case, and then to potential use the data to predict better overclocking processors.)
No, that proves nothing of the sort. It only reflect that Intel sets the VID conservatively with allowances for vdroop, low performing voltage regulation, etc. Your statement is similar to me saying that if I let my Asus motherboard o/c my chip for me, it sets voltage to 1.4 with a 48 multiplier, and therefore my chip must require 1.4v for 4.8GHz. Asus didn't check MY chip, and their built in profiles assume processors in the lower 25 percentile.

Please pardon me while I delve into a bit of sarcasm...

I'm getting the very strong impression that folks in this thread don't actually want to collect data to determine if VID at stock can have any correlation to overclocking ability. Instead of looking at it and saying "it might or might not, but it doesn't hurt to look to try and determine if it does", most people are rejecting it out of hand and even attacking it. So far, no one has made a reasonable argument as to why there'd be harm in collecting the data.

Hey, that's fine. I was under the (seemingly false) impression that the chart (and therefore this thread) was about trying to collect information about overclocking and not a contest. It seemed to me that the VID at a known state would be a better indicator of overclockability than.. a batch code.

Take care
Gary
If you test with one thread so turbo runs 4.5GHz VID goes up. Run Prime95 v28.10 with one thread.
post #2116 of 2915
I think mine is good cpu
4600 @ 1.125 (bios) 1.128(idle) 1.120 (load cinebench and h264 encoding 10 loops real bench) llc=auto MB=MSI z170a Gaming pro carbon

Edited by EDK-TheONE - 4/23/17 at 2:27pm
EDK!
(3 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphics
7700K MSI Z170A Gaming Pro Carbon Zotac 1070 Amp Extreme 
  hide details  
Reply
EDK!
(3 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphics
7700K MSI Z170A Gaming Pro Carbon Zotac 1070 Amp Extreme 
  hide details  
Reply
post #2117 of 2915
Trying to understand why my VID is steady at a given frequency, and other's aren't, I've been playing in BIOS. I did the Asus "automagic" 5GHz overclock (which was perfectly stable running linpack), and VID would fluctuate with power (as others have mentioned.) So, I tried to restore my previous BIOS settings and found that my entire system would lock up in BIOS when trying to restore the settings.

One CMOS clear later (thank you for that external button, Asus), I reconfigured my settings and I think I figured it out: Since my z97 board (and continuing with my z170 and z270 boards) the motherboards seem to try to be "helpful" by dumping extra voltage to the processor with completely default settings. The way I normally work around that is to change the processor voltage to "offset" or "adaptive" modes, and leave the offsets as "auto."

An example of the difference is that my current 7700k will run ~1.2volts vcore with completely stock m/b settings. However, when I'm in offset or adaptive mode (with no values specified for the offsets), my vcore reaches 1.136. However, it appears that this offset/adaptive mode is also doing something to cause the VID to lock at a specific voltage for a given frequency. I don't know if it's locking it at a higher number or a lower number.

That leaves me wondering how two people can create identical loads to compare VID's. As others have mentioned, it might not be feasible to compare them if a consistent mechanism isn't available.

Edit/Update: I typed too soon. I just went back to completely "auto" on my core voltage, and VID is still constant for a given frequency regardless of load. The only other thing I've changed IRT to voltage is setting LLC 5. Perhaps something IS wrong with this m/b?
Edited by garyd9 - 4/23/17 at 2:54pm
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7-7700K Asus ROG Maximus IX Hero Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1070 G1 Gaming 4x 8GB Vengeance LPX Series 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
1TB Samsung EVO 960 NVME M.2 EKWB based custom loop: Supremacy EVO, SE360 R... Windows 10 Pro x64 Asus PB328Q 32" WQHD 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus 25" 16:10 (forgot the model number) Ducky Shine 5 EVGA SuperNOVA 650 G2  Corsair Crystal Series 460X RGB 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech G900 Corsair MM300 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7-7700K Asus ROG Maximus IX Hero Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1070 G1 Gaming 4x 8GB Vengeance LPX Series 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
1TB Samsung EVO 960 NVME M.2 EKWB based custom loop: Supremacy EVO, SE360 R... Windows 10 Pro x64 Asus PB328Q 32" WQHD 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus 25" 16:10 (forgot the model number) Ducky Shine 5 EVGA SuperNOVA 650 G2  Corsair Crystal Series 460X RGB 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech G900 Corsair MM300 
  hide details  
Reply
post #2118 of 2915
Quote:
Originally Posted by garyd9 View Post

Trying to understand why my VID is steady at a given frequency, and other's aren't, I've been playing in BIOS. I did the Asus "automagic" 5GHz overclock (which was perfectly stable running linpack), and VID would fluctuate with power (as others have mentioned.) So, I tried to restore my previous BIOS settings and found that my entire system would lock up in BIOS when trying to restore the settings.

One CMOS clear later (thank you for that external button, Asus), I reconfigured my settings and I think I figured it out: Since my z97 board (and continuing with my z170 and z270 boards) the motherboards seem to try to be "helpful" by dumping extra voltage to the processor with completely default settings. The way I normally work around that is to change the processor voltage to "offset" or "adaptive" modes, and leave the offsets as "auto."

An example of the difference is that my current 7700k will run ~1.2volts vcore with completely stock m/b settings. However, when I'm in offset or adaptive mode (with no values specified for the offsets), my vcore reaches 1.136. However, it appears that this offset/adaptive mode is also doing something to cause the VID to lock at a specific voltage for a given frequency. I don't know if it's locking it at a higher number or a lower number.

That leaves me wondering how two people can create identical loads to compare VID's. As others have mentioned, it might not be feasible to compare them if a consistent mechanism isn't available.

Edit/Update: I typed too soon. I just went back to completely "auto" on my core voltage, and VID is still constant for a given frequency regardless of load. The only other thing I've changed IRT to voltage is setting LLC 5. Perhaps something IS wrong with this m/b?
There is something off with your VID reading because with a given load variations your Vcore jumps around from using VID calibration like it is suppose to. When measuring Vcore or VID using Adaptive or stock settings I always record the Maximum readings after a duration when stress testing and there always the same amount.

I can tell you are starting to figure things out however your board sounds like it is having trouble showing the change in VID, however looking at the screenshots you have a Vcore change with load like your supposes to.
post #2119 of 2915
I'm starting to think there's something wonky with this m/b... The VID thing seems odd, but it's possible it might be by design. I could probably convince myself of that if I weren't seeing other BIOS related oddities.

For example, the asus bios allows saving your bios settings into "profiles" that you can later restore. If I try to restore anything saved in the #1 slot on my board, however, the board instantly locks up as soon as I confirm I want to load it. The other profile slots are fine.

The board is less than 1 week old, so I'm wondering if I should just exchange it to be safe. Perhaps I'll get a "code" instead of a "hero." I just need to figure out what about the "code" board makes it better than the "hero." Perhaps that extra piece of plastic trapping all the heat against the m/b helps keep GPU temps lower? wink.gif
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7-7700K Asus ROG Maximus IX Hero Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1070 G1 Gaming 4x 8GB Vengeance LPX Series 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
1TB Samsung EVO 960 NVME M.2 EKWB based custom loop: Supremacy EVO, SE360 R... Windows 10 Pro x64 Asus PB328Q 32" WQHD 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus 25" 16:10 (forgot the model number) Ducky Shine 5 EVGA SuperNOVA 650 G2  Corsair Crystal Series 460X RGB 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech G900 Corsair MM300 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7-7700K Asus ROG Maximus IX Hero Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1070 G1 Gaming 4x 8GB Vengeance LPX Series 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
1TB Samsung EVO 960 NVME M.2 EKWB based custom loop: Supremacy EVO, SE360 R... Windows 10 Pro x64 Asus PB328Q 32" WQHD 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus 25" 16:10 (forgot the model number) Ducky Shine 5 EVGA SuperNOVA 650 G2  Corsair Crystal Series 460X RGB 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech G900 Corsair MM300 
  hide details  
Reply
post #2120 of 2915
What would be the best best batch named in the OC chart list so far?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Intel CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › Kaby Lake Overclocking Guide [With Statistics]