|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|10-12-2015 07:15 PM|
|10-12-2015 09:10 AM|
|miklkit||You should visit the air cooling forum and read some of their fan review threads.|
|10-11-2015 11:38 PM|
|06-29-2015 07:14 AM|
Thanks, I now have watercooling so I won't be needing that
It's warm now so 5 GHz is quite not cool enough. But in the winter I can run it.
|06-27-2015 01:02 PM|
Originally Posted by mdocod
There's no reason the same process could not be worked through at 4.7ghz. I'm simply erring on the side of caution with my recommendation since I can't actually have my hands on the problem here from afar. I believe there is a lower risk of running into problems working through the process at a slightly lower clock, as it offers more fudging room for voltage and thermal related stability as the LLC settings are experimented with. It's possible that as this is experimented with, voltage under a load could vary pretty wildly. (+/-0.1V or more may be possible). I also prefer to do this procedure from "round numbers" because it just makes the arithmetic easier come to to layout the road-map. For most other PD chips I would suggest using 4.0ghz to run the same set of tests.
stable at 1.488 which is +0.150 to 4.7. Just throwing that in.
|06-26-2015 12:43 PM|
About noise, what I hear as loads go from idle to stress testing is: A whooshing noise from the case fans that is barely above ambients, then GPU fans revving up while gaming with maybe a little CPU fan noise once in a while, to CPU fan howl at full load. I don't care about noise while stress testing, but they can still be talked over no problem.
Methinks D14 fans are good for maybe 90cfm while the ty-143s do 130cfm installed.
|06-26-2015 10:43 AM|
|06-26-2015 10:39 AM|
Great to see there is still a fanbase around the AM3+ socket and FX-9000 CPUs!
I'm currently using two FX-9590, a FX-9370 and several FX-8000/6000 CPUs. Firstly, I would like to contribute my findings and experiences while digging further into OC capabilities and difficulties.
9370 vs 9590:
.) The 9370 consumes a litte bit more Watts than the 9590 and gets about 5°C warmer at stock speed, while using the same motherboard and cooler (ASUS TUF Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 and Noctua NH-D14).
.) The 9370 CPU-NB needs more Volts to reach 2400 and is unstable at 2600 MHz, while my 9590 is basically capable of that.
Higher than DDR3-1866 support? No!:
Some shops and sites claim the FX-9000 chips would officially support 2133 or even 2400 MHz, because it's based on the Centurion core. But it actually is still the same old Vishera core with the same stepping!
Evidence: Visit AMD, scroll down and look at "Features" http://www.amd.com/en-gb/products/processors/desktop/fx#
Inofficial DDR3-2133 support:
Never had problems, as the CPU-NB speed is 2200 MHz.
Inofficial DDR3-2400 support:
Very problematic, as you have to raise CPU-NB speed to 2400 MHz. The RAM speed itselt surely isn't the problem (at least with my AMD labeled RAMs), but I've never found a reliable scenario regarding the CPU-NB.
ASUS automatically raises CPU-NB Voltage to 1.4V, which is a bit higher than you should go in any 24/7 case. But the system boots and seems to be stable at first look. Even Prime95 seems to do fine. But whole multi-jumps above 2200 MHz lead to very strange phenomenons: IE11 doesn't show webpages correctly after a while and randomly freezes, Win7 Aero began to deactivate itself and couldn't be reactivated until a reboot and games began to show flashing textures, black screens or crash. System crashes or BSODs appeared at very long runtimes but were seldom, as long as I didn't go below 1.35V.
So I don't think this is an option in any case. Unlike the Phenom-IIs, the non-existing speed advantage does not justify the worries you get and I wouldn't trust a machine in that condition with my data!
220W myths and facts:
The 220W TDP and actual consumption depends, of course, completely on its usage. Using it for simple tasks won't be much of a penalty, compared to FX-8000 CPUs.
I've experimented with compact water cooling kits, state-of-the-art at that time, but they were up to 15°(!) warmer than my NH-D14 at half-load and no chance to stay below 80° at full load, besindes the acoustic drawback of the pump. Exception is (should be) an open water cooling solution of course, but that never was an option for me. So it is no problem to cool it, even with air cooling!
That's why people should keep in mind that OC'ing a FX-8000 to the levels of a FX-9000 may and pretty sure is more power consuming and often not even possible, as the FX-9000 are some extraordinary good samples of the same chip. So, FX-8000 OC'ing may draw more power than using a stock FX-9000!
On the other side, by OC'ing the FX-9000, disabling CnQ, disabling APM (AMD Power Management), or activating HPC (High Performance Computing), you may need way more than 220W! The 220W TDP is a maximum desired value that ends in slowing down CPU speed and V. if reached. E.g.: At stock speed 2 threads of Prime95 prevents Turbo Core to work and 8 threads slows the clock to 4 GHz or even below. After messing with some BIOS options, it is possible to stay at full clock speed and use a lot more power that way.
9590 V. & LLC settings @ 5 GHz:
I too never had success in reaching 5 GHz for the base clock. 4,75-4,80 GHz is realistic. Anything higher is not stable at full load, even if I gave it 1.55V or more.
Some considerations about that:
1.) The same boards that were 125/140W capable, suddenly are now 220W capable, without visible changes. The headroom (8+ Phases) from the past has obviously been used up to support a 220W CPU out of the box.
2.) By OC'ing that CPU, you reach power needs, the board can hardly handle.
3.) Because of that, it seems most likely, the CPU is not in need of more V., but the board is the limiting factor.
4.) Has anyone reliable information of the actual V. a core gets if running in Turbo Mode? That V. has to be sufficient and I suspect it not to be 1.55V, but something between 1.475 and 1.525 Volts. Find that V. and you have stable 5 GHz at reasonable V! But just theoretically, because it is not designed to have that kind of V. on every core at full load, which leads to enormous power needs.
5.) Regarding LLC, most boards have their CPU LLC at AUTO. Some even offer CPU-NB LLC. At CPU stock speed, the system keeps absolutely stable if LLC is set to Standard, Regular or Normal. Therefore it is just a method for reaching redicolously high V. settings (>1.55V) and shouldn't be needed at 5 GHz, right?
6.) Setting LLC it to High, Higher or Extreme gave me far to high temperatures at load (base V. at default), leading to shutdown after a short time of Prime and did nothing to stabilize clocks above 4.8 GHz.
7.) There is no difference between multi OC and HT OC.
8.) I've tried CPU, CPU-NB and DRAM overcurrent to help out. Even CPU @ 130% didn't do any good. It this is the key to a successful OC, as many reviewers hype it, I don't see it.
I hope this isn't too much information at once and maybe it helps to clear someones questions or helps me understanding it better, if I am wrong in some cases.
What do you think of setting HTT clock equal to CPU-NB clock? Is it better equally or leave HTT at default of 2600 MHz for no (dis)advantage?
|06-21-2015 10:39 AM|
Put some Thermalright TY-143 2600 rpm fans on the D15 and work on case air flow, and you will be there. Air cooling works at its max efficiency when the air is moving at 12mph/20kph.
|06-21-2015 07:31 AM|
Quote:to get over 1.55 you will probably need to use voltage offsets...most of the asrock boards seem to be this way...at least the two am3 ones I've used...my saber I can set 1.7 all day long (not that I will) but once I install thus second pump 1.6 and hopefully 5.0+ is coming...
Originally Posted by XionEternum
As stated previously my FX9590 hangs at more than 4.8GHz due to what can only be voltage droops and spikes on the ASRock 990FX Extreme9 with no LLC/vcore combination working. The Biostar board barely tolerates the CPU at stock settings let alone anything more. Both boards refuse to POST at more than 1.55vcore. I've seen the vcore spike above 1.6 during load on the Extreme9 depending on LLC setting. I have a Cooler Master Glacer 240L (rebranded Swiftech H220) with it's 30mm thick dual 120mm radiator and a pair of Corsair SP120 PWM fans cooling the 9590. CPU core temps have not gone over even 58C at about 18C ambient; so a 40C delta in ANY of my testing. The VRM and NB are well below their thermal limit as well in my testing.
Now all this in mind; what exactly are you saying 'false' to?
Have you monitored your actual vcore with CPU-Z while testing load since LLC causes that to fluctuate in various amounts both at idle and at load?
What makes you think 1.6 will kill your chip even on a test boot (if it weren't limited to 1.55 max to begin with)?
On second thought stick with what you're comfortable with. If anyone's experience here is any indication it's best to run stock FX9590 (with C&Q enabled for lower-end 9590 certified MBs) and any hope of getting more out of the 9590 likely lies in the CHVF-Z. Even a review on the Extreme9 shows a mere 200MHz OC at best in their testing. It is an FX8350 with a binned and certified pre-overclock out of the box. Shouldn't expect more out of it on MBs that aren't designed with power delivery built for breaking records.
Also I doubt your exaggerative speculation that it would take LN2 or a 'fast' custom loop for 1.6vcore. Enough that I'm going to break out the wattage calculator.
Yes, as expected at stock speeds a vcore bump from 1.5 which has a TDP of 220watts to 1.55 has a TDP of 235 and then 1.6 has a TDP of 250. Still well within the thermal load of the best air coolers which have TDP capacities around 300watts. I swear people go to such bizarre extremes when they don't actually know or do the research. Also it doesn't matter how 'fast' a custom loop is; flow rate does not matter. Water has enormous thermal load, and even at a slow and steady flow rate once equilibrium is attained there is no thermal difference if you increase the flow rate. Increased flow rate really does nothing but add more noise and heat to the loop. Pump runs harder making it louder and use more power which adds heat to the water. You should subscribe to JayzTwoCents. He's gone to great lengths to dispel the myths of watercooling.
|This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|