3
this^^ you your risking data corruption even now IMO at 106MHz BCLK running that for everyday clocks just for tiny little gains in performance.Originally Posted by Blameless
I wouldn't.
106MHz is already pretty borderline for the PCH, SATA controllers, and hard drives; go further and you risk data corruption.
Quote:Originally Posted by stubass
Setting Higher BCLK is really only ok for getting some more out of your highest validation OC.. i doubt no one would run 110MHz or be able to for long periods of time.
Quote:Originally Posted by looniam
i've been looking for a few hours to see if any "alarmist" would reply, "overclocking the BCLK is very dangerous and should not be done!" i always though as enthusiasts we reasonably throw caution to the wind and tweak those settings!
but i digress, let me ask a question to answer your question; have you noticed a difference with the 6% clock speed you have now?
an additional ~2% probably won't if the 6% hasn't. but it may be what puts you "over the hump" and you'll see something. since i have a i5-2400 i goofed around and went 103 without any problems, so i tired seeing where the limit is at by raising it until i could not boot/post and got as far as 106.5 before there was no love. a 105.5 @38 multi would give me a single core clock speed of ~4Ghz but seeing how 1hz more wouldn't boot, that is too close to the edge to hang around at, if you understand what i am thinking and not too much of what i did is strictly single core.
so with that said, if you are looking for any performance increase, i think you may get disappointed. but if you are looking to tweak what you have for fun - well, go for it. (insert disclaimer that there are risks involved, some you know of but others that are not known until they happen)
however, if you are apprehensive at adjusting your voltage i would believe it would be wise to hold off doing anything further until you overcome that fear. also you will want to get comfortable with adjusting the load line calibration (LLC). i doubt it will be necessary since what overclocking you are doing, single digit % increase, is not that huge but the point is to get comfortable with your bios and understanding what you are doing.
get some first hand experience tweaking where you are at now - then sit down with a pencil and paper; because writing down what settings you change will be helpful; and see how far you can go - i have seen some reviews hit 110 BLCK but didn't see if it was stable . . .
Quote:Originally Posted by stubass
this^^ you your risking data corruption even now IMO at 106MHz BCLK running that for everyday clocks just for tiny little gains in performance.
Thanks for the responses. Is a 106 bclk really dangerous though? As ive read people have said thats on the danger side of standard. I really want this 4.2 overclock, and this seems the only way i can do it. Also, for me data corruption isnt really a big deal, more just a minor annoyance as 95% of my data is clouded ie games and most other things i have installed and all the others can be installed and running in an hour or two. i have no data i really need nor am i scared to lose it. i just need a stable pc for gaming, and livestreaming which is why i overclocked. I've seen no stability issues yet, and ive seen people running a 107.5 bclk with no stability issues. Also, when i do say push it i mean in no way 110+. more 107 108 at the VERY highest. What do you recommend i do? Just run at 4 ghz at be fine? or just lower my bclk alittle bit, and attain a decnt oc with less danger of windows corruption. Also i have run prime and heaven seperately, and together with no crashes, artifacting, or anything really at all. temps are all great.Originally Posted by Blameless
I wouldn't.
106MHz is already pretty borderline for the PCH, SATA controllers, and hard drives; go further and you risk data corruption.
so nothing for single threaded benchmarking? . . .interesting.Originally Posted by stubass
Setting Higher BCLK is really only ok for getting some more out of your highest validation OC.. i doubt no one would run 110MHz or be able to for long periods of time.
yes, yes it will - going with an offset will help keep the temps down and slightly decrease the "wear and tear" on the cpu.Originally Posted by willll162904
Im just debating whether manually finding my vcore and offset, wil be worth the hassle.
Ok thats what i thought. Do you think that slight temp decrease is worth it? Like i said, my temps are fine. If they were higher i would definately have done it already.And anything on my danger of data corruption and instability?Originally Posted by looniam
so nothing for single threaded benchmarking? . . .interesting.
yes, yes it will - going with an offset will help keep the temps down and slightly decrease the "wear and tear" on the cpu.
personally i like to keep the voltage down just above getting a BSOD while stressing/gaming/benching. iirc i saw a 3c/5c temp decrease idle/load by using a negative (-) offset of 0.120 (the first red in the BIOS) idle is 0.955 and 1.228 on load in cpu-z [email protected] 36 multi for ~3.7Ghz; your milage may vary.Originally Posted by willll162904
Ok thats what i thought. Do you think that slight temp decrease is worth it? Like i said, my temps are fine. If they were higher i would definately have done it already.And anything on my danger of data corruption and instability?
i didn't mean to be adversarial eitherOriginally Posted by stubass
@looniam.. Yep ok for single threaded bechies too. My main point wasnt directed at you or anyone in particular.more so that not advisable over long periods of time such as daily use.![smile.gif]()
Ok. ATM i lowered my bclk to 100, and im just running 4 ghz. Mainly because when i raise the bclk it changes the ram frequency to weird numbers and overall my ocd kicked in and wouldnt let that slide. As far as i know theres no way to get passed that until hitting ridiculously high bclk numbers ie 130-160 something when the frequencies finally even out. Kinda pissing me off. i really want 4.2 just to say i got there, plus with streaming any speed increase helps. One thing that is very frustrating is that in my bios i can set my cp ratio to 42 just fine, but when i boot into windows all my programs show it at 40 not 42, and my cpu runs at 4 ghz and wont go past it. Then when i load back into the bios it still says 42, but its not running there. Ive heard about maybe having to change the turbo boost power limits? so frustrating ;pOriginally Posted by looniam
personally i like to keep the voltage down just above getting a BSOD while stressing/gaming/benching. iirc i saw a 3c/5c temp decrease idle/load by using a negative (-) offset of 0.120 (the first red in the BIOS) idle is 0.955 and 1.228 on load in cpu-z [email protected] 36 multi for ~3.7Ghz; your milage may vary.
look in all honesty there is always danger when running anything out of specs. depending on how long you have had your BCLK raised, if you haven't gotten a BSOD or failed to boot, chances are you're fine.
2
i feel your pain but no, the best you can do is go 4 "bins" above the default turbo boost. even though i also see a higher ratio in the bios settings (38) the highest i do get for all four cores is 36. i was under the impression that enabling Multi Core Enhancement (MCE) would allow be to run it higher and even got into an argument with a respected member of the community; this forum among others. turns out he was right.Originally Posted by willll162904
Ok. ATM i lowered my bclk to 100, and im just running 4 ghz. Mainly because when i raise the bclk it changes the ram frequency to weird numbers and overall my ocd kicked in and wouldnt let that slide. As far as i know theres no way to get passed that until hitting ridiculously high bclk numbers ie 130-160 something when the frequencies finally even out. Kinda pissing me off. i really want 4.2 just to say i got there, plus with streaming any speed increase helps. One thing that is very frustrating is that in my bios i can set my cp ratio to 42 just fine, but when i boot into windows all my programs show it at 40 not 42, and my cpu runs at 4 ghz and wont go past it. Then when i load back into the bios it still says 42, but its not running there. Ive heard about maybe having to change the turbo boost power limits? so frustrating ;p
Ok but four bins above the default turbo for me is 42, meaning i should be able to get 4.2 just fine. I get 4 ghz perfect, no issues whatsoever. Why wont it pass that?Originally Posted by looniam
i feel your pain but no, the best you can do is go 4 "bins" above the default turbo boost. even though i also see a higher ratio in the bios settings (38) the highest i do get for all four cores is 36. i was under the impression that enabling Multi Core Enhancement (MCE) would allow be to run it higher and even got into an argument with a respected member of the community; this forum among others. turns out he was right.
when it really boils down to it, i have 103 just for the feeling of getting a few points in cinebench and a couple of Mhz on the RAM, as you noticed yourself. i am sure the 0.003 seconds faster it takes to encode a video is almost pointless but the bottom line is having the feeling of getting a little something for nothing.![redface.gif]()
the first time i ever overclocked anything was setting the jumpers on a FIC motherbord to a 85Mhz bus speed instead of 66, oh boy! was i rocking that 233MMX @ 266!![tongue.gif]()
Oh! so your saying it may be running at 4.2, but while gaming or running prime, it backs down 2 cores to 4 ghz? I see. Overall, if you were in my shoes, running 4 ghz fine temps totally stable, would you suggest pushing my bclk to 105-6 and getting 4.2 ghz? I really want to but i need to be totally stable. Also will the slight change in ram freq. do much negatively? With that bclk i was running stable gaming and priming for a little over a day no artifacts, crashing, anything out of the ordinary.Originally Posted by looniam
the confusing thing is the highest turbo speed is single core; it will hit that on one core but, with a load on all 4 cores it will back down 2.
EDIT: the tables are here
http://www.intel.com/support/processors/corei5/sb/CS-032278.htm
how long were you running prime? sometimes it takes hours before an error will show.Originally Posted by willll162904
Oh! so your saying it may be running at 4.2, but while gaming or running prime, it backs down 2 cores to 4 ghz? I see. Overall, if you were in my shoes, running 4 ghz fine temps totally stable, would you suggest pushing my bclk to 105-6 and getting 4.2 ghz? I really want to but i need to be totally stable. Also will the slight change in ram freq. do much negatively? With that bclk i was running stable gaming and priming for a little over a day no artifacts, crashing, anything out of the ordinary.
