Overclock.net banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
OK evryone, all these threads, with so many overclocks, and I was thinking, what is a good way of rating one overclock against another?
I was thinking about the difference between my 4770K and 4790K, and the fact that the 4790 was able to hit a higher speed, with less Volts, and then the Idea
came to me, to rate your chip in Mhz/V. That way, you can say, chip A runs 3642.21Mhz/V, and chip B runs 3256.18Mhz/V, so to my way of thinking, Chip A is a better
overclocker than chip B, even if B was able to achieve a higher Speed, it needed more Voltage to do so. This isn't a fastest wins thread, but a most efficient thread.
The higher Mhz/V rating, the better. Let me know what you think about this idea, and we can have a top 10 for Intel, and a top 10 for AMD.


OK, so you're still here, good, time for some rules.

  1. Suicide runs are OK, as long as the system runs long enough to get the CPU-Z validation, and a screenshot, then all is good.
  2. Since this is OVERCLOCK.net, you must be ABOVE stock clock speeds too, even if only by a few Mhz, underclocks wont count
  3. You must post a CPU-Z validation, submitted using your OCN username, fill out the form with ALL your information, then Post your score
  4. To calculate your score, you simply divide your Mhz, as reported by CPU-Z, by the Core Volts, as reported by CPU-Z
  5. The CPU-Z must not be a rejected validation, and the system does'nt have to be stable, if there is any intrest, I might make a stable version of this.
  6. The speed you post MUST be the speed reported by CPU-Z as Frequency, so either make sure that you turn power saving off in BIOS, or load up the cores while you validate
    (Diasabling power saving being the easiest, unless you're just reporting your 24/7 figures)

Intel Top 10

  1. REAPER XD 3711.06Mhz/V
  2. fragamemnon 3640.71Mhz/V
  3. bilbs84 3597.97Mhz/V
  4. [CyGnus] 3352.42Mhz/V

Sign Up Here
And one last thing that was pointed out to me, after starting this

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blameless View Post

MHz/V doesn't really describe efficiency.

High leakage parts will clock higher at lower voltages, yet still draw more current, and often consume more power than lower leakage parts that need higher voltages.

It's a little more indicative of OCing potential, but even this is extremely imprecise.
Seems true enough, so everyone reading this, please take not, this is not a serious end of the world competition, just a way for people to see what speeds other people are getting, at what core voltage, and with what chip.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1atGvtPhfSUXDTg0pkGXKuEGoH_dHKlxbXvHN8U2O50I/pubhtml?widget=true&headers=false
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
I just noticed something odd too, I decided to work out my regular 24/7 figures as well, 4398.83, and 1.225V, gives 3591.70Mhz/V - Pretty much exatly the same, almost looks like this figure scales, might have to apply the theory tomorrow and see if 1.364V will let me hit 4.9Ghz?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by REAPER XD View Post

Yea that's a power saving feature, check the multiplier. It says 8 - 48 with the BLCK being theoretically 100.00MHz. Don't understand why you put 3048.07MHz/V When it should be 3657.80MHz/V
Sorry bud, same rules apply here as other Overclock threads, figures will be based on CPU-Z validation result, either turn off power saving for the validation, or load up them cores so it throttles up to full speed. Have to keep it fair for everyone, otherwise it would be too easy to achieve a high score, eg: my core Volts in everyday use throttles depending on load, and at idle, Id score 73313.83Mhz/V, its just not accurate. In other words you have to be able to get into windows, and validate at the speed you're reporting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,291 Posts
Alright, fair enough. You can delete my entry and I'll re-enter, don't like being over 1.3v so I went back down to 4.7GHz and stressed 1.268v reported in CPU-Z. As you can probably guess, the efficiency is 3711.06MHz/V. This also brings me to my next point from what you said earlier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bilbs84 View Post

I just noticed something odd too, I decided to work out my regular 24/7 figures as well, 4398.83, and 1.225V, gives 3591.70Mhz/V - Pretty much exatly the same, almost looks like this figure scales, might have to apply the theory tomorrow and see if 1.364V will let me hit 4.9Ghz?
Most of the time this isn't the case. Let me explain. You can have a CPU, that has 3 cores out of 4 good. But that one core is letting down the whole unit. Why? Because you aren't and there isn't anyway to deliver specified voltages to each core. So core 1 could only need 1.28v for 5GHz but Core 3 would need 1.38v. Core 3 is letting down the other cores because you must set that 1.38v for the CPU to be stable on all cores, even if the other cores don't need that voltage.
 

·
Not New to Overclock.net
Joined
·
3,913 Posts
OK, this sounds like fun.
Submitted my daily driver OC.
smile.gif


I might try a 4.5GHz one afterwards, if multiple entries are allowed?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
There we go, all updated, and I'm sure that it wouldn't scale, but it's something I noticed, and if I dont at least put it to the test for myselft at some point, I know that I wont stop thinking about it lol

Quote:
Originally Posted by fragamemnon View Post

I might try a 4.5GHz one afterwards, if multiple entries are allowed?
Hmm, sounds fair, that we each can have a Daily, and a suicide on there, might have to update the form to reflect that, in the mean time, if you mention in the post what run you are posting, I can add it manually
 

·
Iconoclast
Joined
·
30,988 Posts
MHz/V doesn't really describe efficiency.

High leakage parts will clock higher at lower voltages, yet still draw more current, and often consume more power than lower leakage parts that need higher voltages.

It's a little more indicative of OCing potential, but even this is extremely imprecise.
 

·
Not New to Overclock.net
Joined
·
3,913 Posts
I don't think this thread was meant to be taken seriously, Blameless.

Although you are correct as usual, so people who have misunderstood it can learn something.
smile.gif
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blameless View Post

MHz/V doesn't really describe efficiency.

High leakage parts will clock higher at lower voltages, yet still draw more current, and often consume more power than lower leakage parts that need higher voltages.

It's a little more indicative of OCing potential, but even this is extremely imprecise.
Thankyou for pointing this out, you are right, I added to the first post so that people know and dont get confused
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,262 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blameless View Post

MHz/V doesn't really describe efficiency.

High leakage parts will clock higher at lower voltages, yet still draw more current, and often consume more power than lower leakage parts that need higher voltages.

It's a little more indicative of OCing potential, but even this is extremely imprecise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maarten12100 View Post

Oooh but per volt doesn't say an awful lot about efficiency
we know
wink.gif
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top