Overclock.net banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Old Timer
Joined
·
4,895 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I've got to 4.6 GHz using the settings recommended in this guide: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/265056-29-2600k-2500k-overclocking-guide

It is *semi* stable at this speed. It runs under normal loads (Cities: Skylines), but failed an overnight burn with Prime95 SmallFFT.

My key issue is this: I hit 4.6 on stock clocks, and increasing VCORE to 1.410 hasn't significantly improved stability.

Have I hit the OC ceiling of my CPU? Or, are there other options I should mess with in my BIOS to improve stability? All I've done so far is adjust VCORE.
 

·
Not new to Overclock.net
Joined
·
78,458 Posts
So, setting the voltage in the BIOS to 1.410V doesn't make your system stable enough for Prime95?

What's the voltage being reported by CPU-Z while Prime95's "Blend" test is running?
 

·
Old Timer
Joined
·
4,895 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoCables View Post

So, setting the voltage in the BIOS to 1.410V doesn't make your system stable enough for Prime95?
Correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoCables View Post

What's the voltage being reported by CPU-Z while Prime95's "Blend" test is running?
1.410
 

·
Not new to Overclock.net
Joined
·
78,458 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoaDMTGguy View Post

Correct.
1.410
Oh good, you reported the actual voltage. hehe Most people just say what they set in the BIOS.

Anyway, so wow. Hmm. I have to think for a while - and I'm also kind of on the go, so I'll have to come back to this when I can focus on it more. It might be a few hours or more. Hopefully I won't be the only one to reply!
 

·
Avid Memer
Joined
·
5,958 Posts
Your CPU just might not be capable of maintaining that overclock under load. It isn't your fault, it's the silicon. Something tells me you won't notice a difference between 4.5 GHz and 4.6 GHz.
 

·
Old Timer
Joined
·
4,895 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Quote:
Originally Posted by chessmyantidrug View Post

Your CPU just might not be capable of maintaining that overclock under load. It isn't your fault, it's the silicon. Something tells me you won't notice a difference between 4.5 GHz and 4.6 GHz.
I'm just surprised that I was able to get to 4.6 mostly stable without changing any voltage settings, but if I go to 4.7 on ANY voltage setting I try, it insta-crashes when I put load on it.
 

·
Avid Memer
Joined
·
5,958 Posts
That's the fickle thing about stability. We never know if our system is truly stable, just know that it's stable for X amount of time with a certain load. I just recently upped my overclock from 160x24 (3.84 GHz) to 180x24 (4.32 GHz) and increased core voltage to 1.375. Didn't bother stress testing because the only time I really can is while I'm asleep or at work. I figure if my system crashes while gaming, I can just back down my overclock to a known stable setting. I don't know how stable my system is, but I do know it has tested stable with these settings before and has been stable under the loads which I have given it.
 

·
⤷ αC
Joined
·
11,239 Posts

·
Climbin' in yo windows
Joined
·
1,827 Posts
If its any consolation, I run my 2600K at 1.465v in bios which translates to 1.428v in cpu-z to achieve 4.714ghz. These settings have been in play on my rig for over 2 years now lol, before that it sat just south of those numbers to achieve 4.6ghz. I attribute its virility to a really good PSU and CPU cooler lol.
 

·
Old Timer
Joined
·
4,895 Posts
Discussion Starter #10

·
Not new to Overclock.net
Joined
·
78,458 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoaDMTGguy View Post

I'm thinking you're right. It is a used CPU from Craigslist, so who knows what it's been through.
Oh. Perhaps this is why they wanted to sell it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
154 Posts
Grab a 2700K on Ebay or the list, they are slightly better. I still have one running right now at 4800 at 1.4 on liquid, stable as **** and can do over 5.
 

·
Avid Memer
Joined
·
5,958 Posts
I wouldn't replace an i7-2600K with an i7-2700K unless I got the latter for under $50. There's not enough of a performance delta between the two to justify the purchase. It would be like replacing an i7-6700K with an i7-7700K. Simply not worth it.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top