Overclock.net banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
600 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hey guys
smile.gif
. i currently have an i5 3570 (non k) in my sig rig. Before i continue buying the non k was an accident i massively regret but wutcha guna do... After much research and asking on the forums, people have said the overclock is limited to a max of 4.2 ghz, with an attainable 4.4ish overclock including the BCLK overclock. For some reason my cpu will not pass 4 ghz, my goal being 4.2. In the bios i can set my cpu ratio to 42, and it works fine, but after testing it will never pass 4 ghz no matter what i tried. So after being stumped for months, i said screw it and went for a bclk overclock. ATM im at 106, and my cpu is running 4.24 ghz totally stable, with 71 being the highest temp i saw after a long time of prime!
smile.gif
I understand that bclk overclocking is more risky than other kinds, but in my case the other kinds just werent getting it done for me, so i was forced to do this. also, with new mobos and cpus, hurting your cpu through overclocking, even bclk ocing, is near impossible. the biggest risk is corruption, and artifacting of windows.

So for reference here's my specs if you too lazy to look at my sig ;p.
P8Z77-V LK mobo
i5 3570 non k @ 4.2 106 bclk 40 multiplier
H60 water cpu cooler

So my question is, should i push it farther? i've heard after 106, your kinda in the danger zone of bclk ocing standards. Thoughts? should i push it to 107,8?

Also ATM i have voltages and offset on auto. I know everyone here will say NO AUTO ERMAGHERDD NEWBBBB. which i totally understand ;p. I'm more than competent enough to set this up myself, but after i finally got this thing running good and stable im scared to change stuff
smile.gif
ATM under prime95 my volts get up to 1.34ish most of the time sometimes 1.38. From what i have seen that;s pretty high for a 4.2 oc. I've seen people running 4.5 oc on 1.2 voltage. My temps are fine though which is also why i dont feel the need to touch it. under hours of prime like i said the highest i ever saw was 71C. Thanks!
 

·
Iconoclast
Joined
·
30,610 Posts
I wouldn't.

106MHz is already pretty borderline for the PCH, SATA controllers, and hard drives; go further and you risk data corruption.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,255 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blameless View Post

I wouldn't.

106MHz is already pretty borderline for the PCH, SATA controllers, and hard drives; go further and you risk data corruption.
this^^ you your risking data corruption even now IMO at 106MHz BCLK running that for everyday clocks just for tiny little gains in performance.
 

·
professional curmudgeon
Joined
·
10,543 Posts
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 . . .
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,255 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
600 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Quote:
Originally Posted by stubass View Post

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 View Post

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 View Post

this^^ you your risking data corruption even now IMO at 106MHz BCLK running that for everyday clocks just for tiny little gains in performance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blameless View Post

I wouldn't.

106MHz is already pretty borderline for the PCH, SATA controllers, and hard drives; go further and you risk data corruption.
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.

Also for the voltages. My real fear isnt that i dont know what i am doing, as i have gained alot of knowleadge, and i pretty much know what every setting in the bios does at this point. Im just debating whether manually finding my vcore and offset, wil be worth the hassle.
 

·
professional curmudgeon
Joined
·
10,543 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by stubass View Post

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.
so nothing for single threaded benchmarking? . . .interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by willll162904 View Post

Im just debating whether manually finding my vcore and offset, wil be worth the hassle.
yes, yes it will - going with an offset will help keep the temps down and slightly decrease the "wear and tear" on the cpu.
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: stubass

·
Registered
Joined
·
600 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Quote:
Originally Posted by looniam View Post

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.
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?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,255 Posts
@looniam.. Yep ok for single threaded bechies too. My main point wasnt directed at you or anyone in particular.
smile.gif
more so that not advisable over long periods of time such as daily use.
 

·
professional curmudgeon
Joined
·
10,543 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by willll162904 View Post

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?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stubass View Post

@looniam.. Yep ok for single threaded bechies too. My main point wasnt directed at you or anyone in particular.
smile.gif
more so that not advisable over long periods of time such as daily use.
i didn't mean to be adversarial either
thumb.gif
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
600 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Quote:
Originally Posted by looniam View Post

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.
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
 

·
professional curmudgeon
Joined
·
10,543 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by willll162904 View Post

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
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
600 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Quote:
Originally Posted by looniam View Post

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
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?
 

·
professional curmudgeon
Joined
·
10,543 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,428 Posts
If you really want to push it, since this is Overclock.net afterall, disable spread spectrum, VCCIO on 1.1v, VCCSA on ~1.0v, and push that BCLK like mad haha.

I tested my BCLK on the 2500K using only my bench os SSD hooked up and got as high as 109.4Mhz SuperPI stable. Even tho random stuff kept crashing (xxxxx has stopped working..) in windows haha.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
600 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Quote:
Originally Posted by looniam View Post

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
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.
 

·
professional curmudgeon
Joined
·
10,543 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by willll162904 View Post

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.
how long were you running prime? sometimes it takes hours before an error will show.
i'll be a bit more detailed about what i have done. i got a p8H67-V feb of 2012 with a i3-2120 and ran a 103 BCLK because enabling the asus gpu boost did it and thought it ought to be ok. didn't have any problems whatsoever with some PNY 1333 RAM for about year. grabbed a i5-2400 and still no issues then got the p8z77-v pro and some low voltage 1600 (1.35) with 103. i did have to up the dimms to 1.40 because of getting rounding errors in prime pretty quick. still haven't had a lick of problem for over 6 months.

i have seen a review site overclock all sandy/ivy with a 105 BCLK at the end of last year.
Test Processor - AMD vs. Intel. 160 units in 52 tests. Which CPU is the fastest?
Test on the end of the world


i really believe it depends alot on the motherboard. to be honest, on one hand i do not fall in with the "naysayers" and give a knee jerk reaction that something cannot be done. however i am not comfortable with telling you, YES! raise your BCLK to 1XX and you'll be fine. though 105 seems reasonable but i cannot tell you in good conscious that it will be fine. i have seen folks hit 106 w/o a problem but some can't do 104, it does vary. just don't jump on what you want but slowly go forth easily.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,428 Posts
As I said 2 posts up, just to follow up on what you said now, I can do 109.x for benches semi-stable but what I run 24/7 on my 2500K is 104.1x49 = 5100.9Mhz. (Normally it's x51 for 5.3 but my H100i is out for RMA and the H220 isn't in yet. CNPS10x P can't cope with 1.48v)

Why the BCLK? Cause my RAM really loves to run at 2200 ish Mhz (now 2220Mhz) with great timings so I need to extra bclk as a Sandy can't do 2200Mhz native.

It runs stable as a rock on a P8Z68-V Pro with offset +0.035 (1.400v actual) and undervolted VCCIO at 0.9875v (1.00v actual) and stock VCCSA. DIMM's run at 2220Mhz 9-11-10-24-1T @ 1.64v.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top