Throttlestop overclocking Desktop PCs

[lexluthermiester]

so can i use a non dell atx psu or do i need a dell psu for the t3500?

You can use a standard ATX PSU for a T3500, however you need one with an 8pin EPS connector plus whatever is needed for the rest of the system. If you're going with an 130w CPU(W3680 or X5680/X5690) it would be a very good idea to get 750w or better. This will allow plenty of extra power for a GPU.

 

[quentin]

You can use a standard ATX PSU for a T3500, however you need one with an 8pin EPS connector plus whatever is needed for the rest of the system. If you're going with an 130w CPU(W3680 or X5680/X5690) it would be a very good idea to get 750w or better. This will allow plenty of extra power for a GPU.

nice yes i had a 750w in mind because im overcklocking my w3680 to 4.1 and i want room to oc my gpu as well

the only problem is that i dont know what card i should buy the rtx 2070s or the 2060s.....
but tnx for the help

 

[rock]

hey guys its been a while,

so i overclocked my w3680 to 4.1 and my pc just blue screens when i ran cinebench and any idea what is causing this to happen?

 

[unclewebb]

what is causing this

A BSOD when overclocking is usually caused by lack of voltage going to the CPU. My W3680 was 100% stable at 4.00 GHz but was not 100% stable at 4.13 GHz. If you cannot increase CPU voltage in the bios then I would only overclock to 4.00 GHz

 

[rock]

A BSOD when overclocking is usually caused by lack of voltage going to the CPU. My W3680 was 100% stable at 4.00 GHz but was not 100% stable at 4.13 GHz. If you cannot increase CPU voltage in the bios then I would only overclock to 4.00 GHz

ahh ok tnx ill keep it at 4.00

 

[lexluthermiester]

the only problem is that i dont know what card i should buy the rtx 2070s or the 2060s.....

Can you afford a 2080? If so, get one, you'll thank yourself later.. If not, the 2070super is a good option.

 

[quentin]

Can you afford a 2080? If so, get one, you'll thank yourself later.. If not, the 2070super is a good option.

the 2080 is over my budget so ill go with the 2070s tnx for the help.

 

[lexluthermiester]

the 2080 is over my budget so ill go with the 2070s tnx for the help.

You're very welcome! Enjoy!

 

[dhrag5t]

So glad I found this forum. Throttlestop has been great for my Xeon W3690, which I managed to get to a very stable 4.13 ghz with x31 multiplier by upping the TDP to 190. Definitely breathed new life into this older T3500.

Managed to keep temps under 70 degrees as well, as I zip-tied an 80mm Arctic F8 in a pull configuration onto the default heatsink (which was also re-applied to the CPU with MX-4 thermal compound) which then exits the fan via another 80mm Arctic F8 on the back of the case. Unfortunately they run at 100% all the time due to there being no extra 3/4 pin connectors on the motherboard for additional fans, so I had to use a cheap molex to 4x3 pin adapter.

 

[Retrorockit]

In post #706, and #605.... I give some part # for 3 wire thermal controlled fans. They can only be used as exhaust because they self regulate based on the temperature of the air going through them. They aren't hard to find. They were used in pre PWM Pentium 4 and Pentium D Dell systems as CPU fans. Mangupta is using them succesfully in 40*C. ambient temperatures. You can spot them by the blue thermistor on the outlet side of the fan.

 

[dhrag5t]

Quick update: Upgraded my ram to 24GB with 3x8GB 1600mhz Corsair modules. For those wondering, yes, the T3500 can take 8GB modules. They'll just run at 1333 (unless someone knows anything about overclocking RAM on this workstation).

I think the better quality RAM (I was previously running 6 assorted hynix/samsung sticks) is what's allowed me to reach a 32x multiplier with ThrottleStop, to get to a pretty stable 4.26 GHz on all cores. I previously couldn't get Cinebench R15 to finish at 4.26 Ghz as it would crash near the end. But now it seems to be working. New cinebench:

This has been a lot of fun! I always loved my W3690 as it's been a beast, but the past month knowing I can squeeze out even more performance on a locked OEM motherboard has definitely bought me at least another 3 years before I'll think of upgrading. And even then, with all the improvements DirectX 12 and VULKAN have made for multi-core gaming, I wonder if it can last even longer, possibly even into the mid-2020's before the CPU becomes a bottleneck for newer, more intensive games.

 

[Retrorockit]

I think 4.26 bench stable might be a new record for this. Maybe the W3690 IS binned a little better than the W3680.
Could you do a run at userbenchmark.com? It's always fun to see a TS overclock on a locked BIOS computer there.
It really shows how the OC performs compared to regular systems.
There can be a hidden performance benefit to running high performance RAM even in a locked system. If you run PC Wizard it will show the latency you're getting at the 1333 speed. It may be much better than what's advertised at 1600, or what you had before with mixed modules. Reduced latency helps just as much as clock speed, and it's all we can hope for on these systems.

 

[dhrag5t]

Could you do a run at userbenchmark.com? It's always fun to see a TS overclock on a locked BIOS computer there.

Sure, here's the link.

I actually played around with it even more for this benchmark and managed to get the first core to a 33x multiplier while keeping all the other cores at 32x. System crashed and gave BSOD when I tried to get all cores up to 33x though.

Then on PassMark I got a CPU score of 10303 by pushing the first core to a 34x multiplier while keeping the rest at 32x. Ran stable at 4.2 GHz for the multi core tests and then actually bumped up to 4.4-4.5Ghz for the final stage of the test which is single threaded performance (the multiplier fluctuated between 33.3 and 33.8 so this shows the true max capacity of this locked CPU+mobo combo without changing voltages). Single thread score of 1938 beats the Ryzen 5 1600 (1818) which is one of the most popular mid-range CPU choices available right now.

The overall score of 10,303 falls between the stock i7-6700 (at 10,003) and the stock i7-7700 (at 10,685). Incredibly impressive.

Here are the results without ThrottleStop, at the W3690 stock speeds of 3.46 Ghz with all core turbo of 3.6 Ghz and single core turbo of 3.73 Ghz. Scores 8927. Still respectable for an almost 10-year old platform but the single threaded performance suffers quite a bit.

 

[SamirD]

I absolutely love seeing systems like this in the wild. It's unreal how much power is still accessible in older systems that are basically being thrown away today because they're 'old'. DDR4 and nvme and all that jazz sounds like an astronomical leap until you see the numbers of the system's overall performance.

This is one single thread result that always impresses me:

Intel Core i5-680 @ 3.60GHz vs AMD Ryzen 5 1600 [cpubenchmark.net] by PassMark Software

This is literally a first gen i-core processor against a much newer ryzen, and the single thread performance difference would hardly be noticed. And the crazy thing is that I've gotten the i5-680 for as little as $10--no one has a clue of this hidden gem. Whoops, maybe people just found out.

 

[king of swag187]

Nearly 4x the performance for 5x the price. Not bad for both of them.

 

[dhrag5t]

I absolutely love seeing systems like this in the wild. It's unreal how much power is still accessible in older systems that are basically being thrown away today because they're 'old'. DDR4 and nvme and all that jazz sounds like an astronomical leap until you see the numbers of the system's overall performance.

x58 might be Intel's most legendary platform of all time. It's aged so well and can still handle almost everything you throw at it. The triple channel RAM has allowed it to stay relevant even in 2019. 6 cores and 12 threads was viewed as overkill back in the early 2010's when they released, but now it's able to easily keep up with the latest mid-range offerings from both Intel and AMD. On unlocked motherboards, it's possible to get most 1366 CPU's up to 4.4 or 4.5 Ghz on all cores which is absolutely fine for almost all of today's productivity software and gaming.

And if you get extremely lucky and find an EVGA SR-2 motherboard for cheap (it's incredibly rare and expensive because it supports dual CPU's), you could build a monster 12 core, 24 thread rig with dual x5690s and get both of them up to around 4.4/4.5Ghz:

 

[EarthDog]

x58 might be Intel's most legendary platform of all time. It's aged so well and can still handle almost everything you throw at it. The triple channel RAM has allowed it to stay relevant even in 2019. 6 cores and 12 threads was viewed as overkill back in the early 2010's when they released, but now it's able to easily keep up with the latest mid-range offerings from both Intel and AMD. On unlocked motherboards, it's possible to get most 1366 CPU's up to 4.4 or 4.5 Ghz on all cores which is absolutely fine for almost all of today's productivity software and gaming.

And if you get extremely lucky and find an EVGA SR-2 motherboard for cheap (it's incredibly rare and expensive because it supports dual CPU's), you could build a monster 12 core, 24 thread rig with dual x5690s and get both of them up to around 4.4/4.5Ghz:

Dude....

1. Triple channel RAM and its bandwidth has little to nothing to do with things.
2. That CPU cannot remotely keep up with the same core/thread count CPUs on any front.
3. While the clock speeds are nice, those CPUs are like 50% behind in IPC. If you game on it at 1080p with any decent card, there is a glass ceiling severely limiting FPS. Now, you can still manage a decent experience, don't misunderstand me, but you are neutering any mid-range+ card and the experience can suffer.

They were good, but now these are quite long in the tooth for most.

 

[SamirD]

Nearly 4x the performance for 5x the price. Not bad for both of them.

Yep, solid value for either one depending on what you need. If you don't need cores, you can go with the cheaper.

Dude....

1. Triple channel RAM and its bandwidth has little to nothing to do with things.
2. That CPU cannot remotely keep up with the same core/thread count CPUs on any front.
3. While the clock speeds are nice, those CPUs are like 50% behind in IPC. If you game on it at 1080p with any decent card, there is a glass ceiling severely limiting FPS. Now, you can still manage a decent experience, don't misunderstand me, but you are neutering any mid-range+ card and the experience can suffer.

Let's call a spade a spade... or in this case, a potato a potato.

I'd rather have an 9600K/9700K (or a 3700x) which would outperform a single chip easily, and perhaps both chips in any multi-threaded benchmark/activity.

They were good, but now these are quite long in the tooth for most.

1. Memory bandwidth is important no matter what the platform, so it's completely relevant.
2. 4 core cpus still exist on the low end, so absolutely still relevant hardware--just not anywhere near the top.
3. IPC is lower for sure, and that's the biggest drawback, but no one is going to be trying to do 4k vr on one of these.

If money is no object, of course top of the line will be the best. That's like saying that a McLaren MP4 is faster than a Ford Focus--of course it is--but how much does the McLaren cost? When you've got money out the wazoo, it doesn't matter--when you're looking bang for buck, these type of systems are quite impressive for how little they cost, especially when overclocked and tuned, and they can compete head-to-head with some of the best values present today.

 

[EarthDog]

1. Memory bandwidth is important no matter what the platform, so it's completely relevant.

1. Nope. Back when it was released, it showed nearly zero difference in gaming and most tasks. That still holds true.
2. I didn't mention a thing about low core count CPUs. A 4c/4t CPU also places a glass ceiling on any titles which can use more.. and these days, there are quite a bit out.
3. The higher the resolution, the less a CPU matters. Since people using this old stuff are likely running 1080p, or perhaps lower, this puts a lot of honus on the CPU. Few are trying 4K VR on X58...

I disagree these are worth it even in the bang for the buck category. You can grab a i5-8400 and be better off performance wise than two of those CPUs in gaming... and potentially in multi-threaded benchmarks.

I mean, I get it.. I hear you... but they simply cannot compete head to head on the performance front (again when matching core and thread count). I would push HARD to any user thinking of this as opposed to going modern.

I digress.

 

[SamirD]

1. Nope. Back when it was released, it showed nearly zero difference in gaming and most tasks. That still holds true.
2. I didn't mention a thing about low core count CPUs. A 4c/4t CPU also places a glass ceiling on any titles which can use more.. and these days, there are quite a bit out.
3. The higher the resolution, the less a CPU matters. Since people using this old stuff are likely running 1080p, or perhaps lower, this puts a lot of honus on the CPU. Few are trying 4K VR on X58...

I disagree these are worth it even in the bang for the buck category. You can grab a i5-8400 and be better off performance wise than two of those CPUs in gaming... and potentially in multi-threaded benchmarks.

I mean, I get it.. I hear you... but they simply cannot compete head to head on the performance front (again when matching core and thread count). I would push HARD to any user thinking of this as opposed to going modern.

I digress.

1. Memory bandwidth is always relevant--how do you think the data gets back and forth from the cpu?
2. Gaming? Oh yeah, this type of set up isn't going to be great for much gaming. I don't disagree there.
3. Wait, so then why would 1080p with a 1080Ti put strain on the cpu? Besides, this particular cpu is a xeon, so no igpu.

The passmark results above are on almost on par with an i5-2500k, which with a 1070 still can be a gaming system. Such a system with the 1070 can be put together for literally $300 complete. An i5-8400 cpu alone is $200, and by the time you build out the system it will cost 2x as much. Will it have 2x the performance? Possibly in gaming, but you paid 2x too.

You don't get it if you're pushing someone hard to not go modern. If you have limited cash, you can't think modern, but have to think value. I know places to pick up full i5-2500k systems for $50. Add a $100 used 1060 and you've got a gaming system cheaper than even the cpu on an i5-8400 build. Overclock the 2500k and the performance difference becomes even slimmer:

Intel Core i5-8400 @ 2.80GHz vs Intel Core i5-2500K @ 3.30GHz [cpubenchmark.net] by PassMark Software

 

[EarthDog]

1. Check out some benchmarks, friend.
2. That is mostly what I was saying. But it's a lot slower in productivity as well.
3. Xeon/iGPU isn't remotely relevant here. 1080p is a CPU bound resolution in a majority of cases(games). This is simply fact.

Passmark is not exactly a great benchmark, but I'll play...

The 8400 is still around 25% faster in your link. At 1080p, that can make a difference in 1080p gaming. That CPU would need to be well past 4.5 GHz to match the 8400 (which you can also lock all c/t to its turbo clock). Please look at some reputable benchmarks. What I'm sharing is all out there.

In the end though, if you have $150 to try and build a PC, what the heck CAN you do but buy generations old hardware? It is what it is... but throw a little budget at it, and the experience can be quite a bit better. I do understand what you are saying though.

 

[SamirD]

1. Check out some benchmarks, friend.
2. That is mostly what I was saying. But it's a lot slower in productivity as well.
3. Xeon/iGPU isn't remotely relevant here. 1080p is a CPU bound resolution in a majority of cases(games). This is simply fact.

Passmark is not exactly a great benchmark, but I'll play...

The 8400 is still around 25% faster in your link. At 1080p, that can make a difference in 1080p gaming. That CPU would need to be well past 4.5 GHz to match the 8400 (which you can also lock all c/t to its turbo clock). Please look at some reputable benchmarks. What I'm sharing is all out there.

In the end though, if you have $150 to try and build a PC, what the heck CAN you do but buy generations old hardware? It is what it is... but throw a little budget at it, and the experience can be quite a bit better. I do understand what you are saying though.

1. You need to understand system design. If memory performance didn't matter, we wouldn't have ddr, ddr2, ddr3, and ddr4. It's an incremental difference in overall performance if you're looking at benchmarks, but bad memory performance will seriously hurt a system--ask anyone with memory issues.
2. It depends on what you use for productivity. For word processing, even old 1st gen Pentiums are good enough as long as you use same-era software. I use xp class systems with a gpu all day long for looking at high-res pdfs. A 4ghz system would be plenty for that. ymmv.
3. Why would 1080p be cpu bound while other resolutions aren't? The pixels are being moved by the video sub-system much more than the cpu. I've seen that building my own systems over the decades and is why a gpu can make all the difference in game playable resolution. There is an upper limit of course which is bound by what the cpu can do, but it's not as low as you think, even with modern games--just check the system requirements. I've seen lga775 still spec'd for modern games, so you can't say that any gaming at 1080p will be completely cpu bound. That's ludicrous.

Passmark is pretty solid for single thread performance ime. It lines up pretty well with any other relative benchmarks. I hope you know there is no absolute perfect benchmark.

No disagreement there, 8400 would be 25% faster. But dollar for dollar, if playing or not playing is my particular issue, better to play with something than nothing.

Budget wise, I've built setups that cost $11k and $15k before. I know about dealing with the bleeding edge and the unreal performance from it. But when looking for the most for your money, you usually won't find it on that end of the spectrum, or anywhere in the upper ends. It will be either some select stuff (like the current ryzen deals) or with stuff that has lost its value, but not its capability. The older system in the recent posts falls into this latter category. And I've learned over the years that this is where the deals are for the most part. Will you be able to do everything modern? Maybe not--but why do retro games still get played? Because it's not the resolution, graphics, or art direction that make a game, but the game itself. And that's what makes the gaming industry. In recent decades it's just that the graphics have gotten better. If one is chasing the graphics to enjoy the game, they're trying to wag the dog by the tail.

 

[skizzo]

so I have two "classic" Mac Pro's, 2009 4,1 models. Each have been modded to identify as a 5,1 2010/2012 model.

One is running a single X5690

The other is running two X5680's

I game at 4K with a Sapphire RX 5700 XT

I think I am CPU bottlenecked in Assassians Creed Odyssey. Even at 1080p its not a constant 60FPS+ so I still play away at 4K even if avg FPS is 37
Rise of the Tomb Raider can game at 4k ultra, but has dips below 60FPS in busy scenes
Other latest and greatest games like Shadow of the Tomb Raider and Resident Evil 2 remake run like Assassians Creed at 4K....it's playable but if I want constant 60FPS+ I must go to either med/high settings, or reduce resolution to 2K and can remain on ultra settings.

My point is the XEON's systems of this period (early 2010) are still very capable today. These CPUs were $1700 when new, going for under $100 on eBay now-a-days. So if someone is still using these systems they are quite usable and upgradable still. However, I sure wouldn't recommend anyone buying into these systems today for gaming alone, perhaps more of a justification for workstation tasks. I also use my systems for audio production running Pro Tools, which is where these sort of setups really can shine. When I have to help out my parents or grandparents, someone with a modern i3 Core laptop I'm always like...wtf....how is your 2 year old laptop more painful (slow, laggy) to use than my 10 year old desktop. Then I compare the CPUs for example and realize the 10yr old XEONs are still better in comparison lol

 

[Retrorockit]

There are newer unlocked CPUs that no one has tried to Throttlestop overclock yet. Maybe Earthdog would like to give it a try? Rumors of unlocked Xeons abound, and of course the regular Extreme CPUs can be done also. If you don't like X58 you don't have to limit yourself to that level. I've encountered Earthdog before and personally haven't seen anything constructive from him yet. But I tend to play with retro stuff by choice. Throttlestop overclocking allows you to overclock many locked BIOS computers that are otherwise not useable for gaming. From what I've seen at Tech Yes City the newer stuff will produce higher fps scores but the X58 can hold up the lower limit just as well which is where games become unplayable. I'm not sure what use 300fps vs 200fps actually has if you actually play at 120.

As far as gaming with the Mac Pro, since they don't have unlocked CPUs I assume they're not overclocked either. A good TS overclocked x58 would probably game much better.

Look on the bright side. "Experts" like Earthdog who get off on bashing the old X58 workstations just help drive the price of these computers down for the rest of us.

 

[EarthDog]

1. You need to understand system design. If memory performance didn't matter, we wouldn't have ddr, ddr2, ddr3, and ddr4. It's an incremental difference in overall performance if you're looking at benchmarks, but bad memory performance will seriously hurt a system--ask anyone with memory issues.
2. It depends on what you use for productivity. For word processing, even old 1st gen Pentiums are good enough as long as you use same-era software. I use xp class systems with a gpu all day long for looking at high-res pdfs. A 4ghz system would be plenty for that. ymmv.
3. Why would 1080p be cpu bound while other resolutions aren't? The pixels are being moved by the video sub-system much more than the cpu. I've seen that building my own systems over the decades and is why a gpu can make all the difference in game playable resolution. There is an upper limit of course which is bound by what the cpu can do, but it's not as low as you think, even with modern games--just check the system requirements. I've seen lga775 still spec'd for modern games, so you can't say that any gaming at 1080p will be completely cpu bound. That's ludicrous.

Passmark is pretty solid for single thread performance ime. It lines up pretty well with any other relative benchmarks. I hope you know there is no absolute perfect benchmark.

No disagreement there, 8400 would be 25% faster. But dollar for dollar, if playing or not playing is my particular issue, better to play with something than nothing.

Budget wise, I've built setups that cost $11k and $15k before. I know about dealing with the bleeding edge and the unreal performance from it. But when looking for the most for your money, you usually won't find it on that end of the spectrum, or anywhere in the upper ends. It will be either some select stuff (like the current ryzen deals) or with stuff that has lost its value, but not its capability. The older system in the recent posts falls into this latter category. And I've learned over the years that this is where the deals are for the most part. Will you be able to do everything modern? Maybe not--but why do retro games still get played? Because it's not the resolution, graphics, or art direction that make a game, but the game itself. And that's what makes the gaming industry. In recent decades it's just that the graphics have gotten better. If one is chasing the graphics to enjoy the game, they're trying to wag the dog by the tail.

1. I do. You need to understand the weight of it... read some benchmarks.
2. Yeah, if the machine is a internet and wp box, a potato would run it. Clearly we arent talking about that..seriously.
3.
Please read up on it. I dont have the time to web search the details. But you have a knowledge gap here.

It isnt ludacris at all.. again, please go find some benchmarks... there is a glass ceiling when using older cpus to game at 1080p or less. The cpu has less work to do at a higher res. Apologies I cant link...I'm mobile...so you'll have to go look for yourself.

Something is better than nothing...obviously, but that isnt the point here.

No perfect benchmarks, I agree. Some are farther from perfect than others. Pass mark isnt generally held as a good one from those in the know, however.

Can we stop now please? We obviously disagree about some things here and it won't be resolved. You dont want look up benches and I dont have the time.njust know that thise old cpus while they will work will be notably slower than modern cpus and hold back gaming at 1080p. I also feel like I'm throwing shade on these cpus for little reason but to prove my points to a random user. Cheers.