8600k avx 0 prime95 hardware fatal error, but avx -2 its fine... ?

[Space Lynx]

all other benches run fine on either avx -2 or 0, all games run great on either...

is this an error with prime95? please advise, spent the last 3 hours tinkering with settings, its getting annoying. specs under name~

 

[sneekypeet]

AVX is much tougher to run (and delivers a ton of heat), and is the reason motherboards started adding an AVX offset. Many chips would fail similarly, and they had to make a way so that such applications could be run. Your post screams of why the option was made in the first place

 

[Space Lynx]

AVX is much tougher to run (and delivers a ton of heat), and is the reason motherboards started adding an AVX offset. Many chips would fail similarly, and they had to make a way so that such applications could be run. Your post screams of why the option was made in the first place

lol ok, well everything runs great and no crashes and great temps... so I am just never going to leave avx at 0, -2 always. i guess i am stable at 5.2ghz after all? someone told me it needs to pass prime95 with avx at 0 to be considered stable... thats why i was worried, because it has literally passed everything but that. and it passes it with flying colors when i turn on avx -2. so meh i dunno im just gonna say screw prime95 at this point and call it stable

 

[sneekypeet]

You can try to make it pass, but my guess is voltage fails to make it happy.

 

[eidairaman1]

Concerning AVX does what it does he might need to drop his CPU speed to I would say try 5.0 gigahertz first see how that does sometimes adding voltage just doesn't cut the mustard

 

[Space Lynx]

Concerning AVX does what it does he might need to drop his CPU speed to I would say try 5.0 gigahertz first see how that does sometimes adding voltage just doesn't cut the mustard

I just tried 4.8ghz at 1.350v, avx 0 - and everything passes, prime95 hardware fatal error on core 2 and core 6. same as before. lol.

avx -2 works perfect. im really mad at prime95 right now... think i will just leave it at 5.2 ghz and avx -2. its fine in everything else. screw prime95.

 

[eidairaman1]

I just tried 4.8ghz at 1.350v, avx 0 - and everything passes, prime95 hardware fatal error on core 2 and core 6. same as before. lol.

avx -2 works perfect. im really mad at prime95 right now... think i will just leave it at 5.2 ghz and avx -2. its fine in everything else. screw prime95.

Ok those 2 cores are weak then.

Fyi, If the Rig doesn't BSOD/Lock up in day to Day use/Gaming/Data Compiling/Ripping, it is fine.

 

[sneekypeet]

Ok those 2 cores are weak then.

Fyi, If the Rig doesn't BSOD/Lock up in day to Day use/Gaming/Data Compiling/Ripping, it is fine.

Some will argue this, and some arguments have merit, but I am in this camp too. Throw the worst thing you do all the time at it, see if it fails to do it.
I have found that gaming is the best benchmark. It runs every part of the system at once, and if there is a time to find a weak spot, it is with all systems chugging together.

 

[Vayra86]

While 'overclocking' with an AVX offset is fine, people do need to be realistic about this and consider that if you use an offset, you might as well just lower the OC altogether. Many applications including games contain AVX these days and the real world effect of the offset is that you get frequency changes literally all the time in any heavy workload.

Its quite pointless to only be able to use your 5.x Ghz OC when you're not really stressing the CPU

While P95 is a hard test to pass, it still is a worst case scenario that you may come across at some point. As long as you know this might happen and that sort of instability is OK to you, then by all means.

For those reasons the OC on my specs to the left here is without an AVX offset and it passes P95. Its possible... just requires different expectations. With 5 Ghz and AVX -2 you're effectively running 4.8 Ghz, so from an overclocking perspective, you may get a more efficient OC if you just target 4.8 Ghz and see how many volts you can shave off. That clockspeed is also a tipping point for many Coffee Lake CPUs in terms of required vCore and overall stability.

Another really nice stability/temp torture run that is less prone to failing workers is IntelBurnTest. If you can't pass that... the OC needs work.

 

[Space Lynx]

While 'overclocking' with an AVX offset is fine, people do need to be realistic about this and consider that if you use an offset, you might as well just lower the OC altogether. Many applications including games contain AVX these days and the real world effect of the offset is that you get frequency changes literally all the time in any heavy workload.

Its quite pointless to only be able to use your 5.x Ghz OC when you're not really stressing the CPU

While P95 is a hard test to pass, it still is a worst case scenario that you may come across at some point. As long as you know this might happen and that sort of instability is OK to you, then by all means.

For those reasons the OC on my specs to the left here is without an AVX offset and it passes P95. Its possible... just requires different expectations. With 5 Ghz and AVX -2 you're effectively running 4.8 Ghz, so from an overclocking perspective, you may get a more efficient OC if you just target 4.8 Ghz and see how many volts you can shave off. That clockspeed is also a tipping point for many Coffee Lake CPUs in terms of required vCore and overall stability.

This is smart. Will try to get 1.31v like you, cheers mate.

 

[John Naylor]

Yes, most folks like me started out using P95 as our OC utility oif choice back in the day .... but it's so "last millenium". I haven't used P95 since Sandy Bridge. Options are use the old P95 w/ no AVX or the new one and make allowances, but either way you are reducing your OC for no reason whatsoever as your CPU will never see these type of loads in its lifetime. And testing ya OC with the old no AVX versions proves only that system is stable only if you don't use modern instruction sets. Kinda like testing your SUvs 4 wheel drive ability in highway driving down to Disney Word in July.

On top of that, I have had 24 hour stable P95 (26.1) loads fail when using a multitasking benchmark such as RoG Real Bench. In short, you'll get a higher OC, with a much lower impact on your CPU by avoiding loads your PC will never see again. It's kinda like testing your car's ability to tow your 200 pound hobie cat on it's boat trailer the 8 miles to the beach at sea level by pulling a low boy with 7,500 pounds of lead up an over the Rocky Mountains. It's not a worse case scenario... it's a never again scenario.

 

[Space Lynx]

Yes, most folks like me started out using P95 as our OC utility oif choice back in the day .... but it's so "last millenium". I haven't used P95 since Sandy Bridge. Options are use the old P95 w/ no AVX or the new one and make allowances, but either way you are reducing your OC for no reason whatsoever as your CPU will never see these type of loads in its lifetime. And testing ya OC with the old no AVX versions proves only that system is stable only if you don't use modern instruction sets. Kinda like testing your SUvs 4 wheel drive ability in highway driving down to Disney Word in July.

On top of that, I have had 24 hour stable P95 (26.1) loads fail when using a multitasking benchmark such as RoG Real Bench. In short, you'll get a higher OC, with a much lower impact on your CPU by avoiding loads your PC will never see again. It's kinda like testing your car's ability to tow your 200 pound hobie cat on it's boat trailer the 8 miles to the beach at sea level by pulling a low boy with 7,500 pounds of lead up an over the Rocky Mountains. It's not a worse case scenario... it's a never again scenario.

my OC at 5.1 ghz passes prime95 small and large FFT 8 hour overnight runs on prime 95 build 26.1 it only fails it on latest build due to AVX, lol.... so i think that means im stable with avx at 0, any programs that use AVX like project cars 2 might be more likely to crash, but 99% of games dont use AVX... that im aware of... so yeah, pretty happy.