• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

TPU's Core i7 Overclocking and Feedback

Everything on auto. Disable turbo/ht if you want to save heat, but everything on auto.

BIOS default if you like.

You can adjust the mem multiplier if you don't trust your mem on high speeds, but really, try auto first. Once you see what it does to your voltages, you can start fiddling around.

I personally almost never mess with anything else than:
- vCore
- QPI (if I need to get it stable on high clocks or my RAM volts are climbing too fast)
- mem multi (throw it down for surefire bootage)
- HT/Turbo
- C-states (turn em off if your multi keeps jumping, also seems to improve stability when turned off and keeps Turbo at 21x at some motherboards that don't do it by themselves)
- and RAM volts ONLY if I'm trying high speeds.
 
Thrackan said:
Everything on auto. Disable turbo/ht if you want to save heat, but everything on auto.

BIOS default if you like.

You can adjust the mem multiplier if you don't trust your mem on high speeds, but really, try auto first. Once you see what it does to your voltages, you can start fiddling around.

I personally almost never mess with anything else than:
- vCore
- QPI (if I need to get it stable on high clocks or my RAM volts are climbing too fast)
- mem multi (throw it down for surefire bootage)
- HT/Turbo
- C-states (turn em off if your multi keeps jumping, also seems to improve stability when turned off and keeps Turbo at 21x at some motherboards that don't do it by themselves)
- and RAM volts ONLY if I'm trying high speeds.
Click to expand...

Good deal :toast: Ill try that
 
I'm Glad to say that worked. I was able to hit 4ghz, but it was setting voltage to 1.45 and wasnt stable after windows loaded. It was stable at 3.8ghz @ 1.4v which I am happy with. Heres a screen shot of my bench. My video card lost about 600 points, but my cpu jumped 3,000 points. Possibly bottleneck on a 4850x2? I am looking into a 2nd one in the next few months probably anyway. I set my multiplier at 19 to achieve 1600mhz on my memory.
 

Attachments

  • Core I7 920 Bench.jpg
    Core I7 920 Bench.jpg
    199 KB · Views: 410
Why not use the 21x multiplier?

If you use that you will need less volts
 
mudkip said:
Why not use the 21x multiplier?

If you use that you will need less volts
Click to expand...

C0 overclocking not D0 overclocking, sir.
 
I have C O and I am using the 21 multiplier.
 
mudkip said:
Why not use the 21x multiplier?

If you use that you will need less volts
Click to expand...

it can do 21, I didnt know it uses less voltage. I changed the multiplier to 21x181. The voltage actually kicked up to 1.456v from 1.408v I had working on 19x200. So im not sure that is uses less?
 
Last edited:
If so : sorry , but you're doing it wrong.

How lower the bclk the less voltage you need.
 
Baer said:
I have C O and I am using the 21 multiplier.
Click to expand...

domy85 said:
it can do 21, I didnt know it uses less voltage. I changed the multiplier to 21x181. The voltage actually kicked up to 1.456v from 1.408v I had working on 19x200. So im not sure that is uses less?
Click to expand...

mudkip said:
If so : sorry , but you're doing it wrong.

How lower the bclk the less voltage you need.
Click to expand...

Has everyone forgotten that some C0 chips had a bug getting to x21 multiplier?

Mudkip you're wrong. Deaaal with it.
 
Binge said:
Has everyone forgotten that some C0 chips had a bug getting to x21 multiplier?

Mudkip you're wrong. Deaaal with it.
Click to expand...

Proof that ''some c0 chips had a bug'' ? If so who says his chip has this ''bug'' ?

I also had a C0 , when I used the 21x multiplier I needed less volts.
Eg for 4Ghz on my C0 i needed 1.44v but with the 21x multiplier only 1.36v.
 
Fit had this bug for one. I would love to remember back to December, but that was the major time when those chips popped up. Ask him about his shitty luck with C0s some time. I would search this thread, but I have a pretty good memory.
 
Well maby I should adjust some things I said before :laugh:

21x multiplier requires less voltage doesn't apply for all chips
 
here's an example from around december from another forum. This guy was thoroughly destroyed when he saw other people hit 4.0 without going over 1.30V. All because he couldn't do x21

2k6_920_4100mhz_4870x2.png
 
I think he was doing it wrong :laugh:
 
Fitseries3 said:
i have tried high and low vcore but it seems to be no different at all. 1.425v runs the same as 1.6v

i have tried pll but it seems to have a negative effect on stability when not set to auto.

i have tried qpi/dram voltage and it helps to some extent but then hinders the stability at higher clocks.

i have tried keeping the vdram .5v over the qpi/dram voltage which seems to be a good way to get stability but quickly becomes worthless and causes instability.

i have tried IOH voltage increase up to 1.53v and it helps for a bit but anything over 1.53v causes the board to not post(like the p5e64 evo did)

i have tried enabling and disabling LLC. neither helps at all.

i have tried the different vreg freq settings but 1000hz seems to be the best. all the others cause bsod on boot.

i have tried reloading 3 different OSes many times and all have the same issue. no stablilty at 192blck+

what now?
Click to expand...

Here's another instance of early C0 i7 issues :3 with the multi at x21
 
Binge said:
Here's another instance of early C0 i7 issues :3 with the multi at x21
Click to expand...

Could be the board?

Not sure though.. but I also think it depends on which mobo you have.

Maby even BIOS issue , bios'es weren't optimized yet so could be a BIOS + mobo bug
 
mudkip said:
Could be the board?

Not sure though.. but I also think it depends on which mobo you have.

Maby even BIOS issue , bios'es weren't optimized yet so could be a BIOS + mobo bug
Click to expand...

At that time I owned the exact same board & a 920 C0 and I was pushing 4.5GHz
 
My chip is one of the later CO's.
I was planing on getting a 975 but I did not want to wait so I got the 920 to play with but it has worked out so well that I will get anothor. I am going to help my nephew build his first DIY and give him my 920 and get a D O and see what it will do.
 
in you's guys's opinions, would i be able to set lower voltage for 4ghz on WHICH of these 2 settings.

191*21 = 4011mhz

200x20 = 4000mhz

I havea feeling the 21x multi means i can lower the vcore, but it also means im starting to under clock my rams :(

which reminds me - i only did this build a month ago, and i can already get DDR3-2000 for what i paid for my 1600, so hello 12gb of 2000mhz ram :) - jeesus things are starting to move, DDR3 1600+ has been around for a while now, but this kit (G.Skill Trident 2000 MHz DDR3 CL9 6 GB) is the ost affordable one ive seen yet, in Australia.

so yeah what do you guys think of A, the 2 oc choices, and B moving to new ram.
 
Wow, I think I have a REALLY good chip!

4.2Ghz 100% stable running on CPUZ vcore of only 1.184v (set to 1.23750v in BIOS)

HT enabled

Turbo enabled

All I did was increase blck to 200. I then set about decreasing the voltage. AUTO had it somewhere around ~1.4v but i've brought it all the way down to 1.23750v without a single problem. That's it!

I did try disabling HT and temps dropped by around 10C but I lost over 1000 CPU marks on 3Dmark06, and my video encoding speed decreased by about 20%. So I've re-enabled it. After all, we want better PERFORMANCE, not just higher clock speed. If 4.2Ghz HT enabled is faster than 4.5Ghz with HT disabled, I'll leave it on!
 
That's a nice first clock there! You have a C0 or D0?
 
It's a D0 ;)

Superpi screenshot attached

<--- Full system specs on the left
 

Attachments

  • superpi.jpg
    superpi.jpg
    34.4 KB · Views: 392
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top