Thermal paste

This is why I didn't want to waste the time. I knew that no matter what I did you would find some way to discount it. Well, if you had certain standards you expected me to observe, you should have made that clear from the start, not after I present evidence that doesn't agree with you.

I watched OCCT and IBT every second for a couple of runs so I could do the screen print at the moment each hit the highest temp. If you don't want to believe that, tough. I'm not doing these tests again just satisfy you. You think there's no difference? Fine, there's no difference. You win. Later.

 

Yeah, sorry I ask you to actually prove the max temps hit and not just post random screenshots that you say were taken at the maximum temps. See, when you are trying to disprove someone elses evidence, generally you want to provide evidence of your own that is of equal quality. I shouldn't have to spoon feed you how to do that. You come in here talking like you are some big expert on the subject, telling people they are wrong left and right without showing one shred of proof, but you need me to tell you how to give a proper screenshot showing maximum temperature?

You want to get ignorant and insulting and act like the big man without backing up your comments, thats fine. My evidence shows I'm right, your "evidence" shows you don't know what you are doing or talking about. And don't give me this BS about you won't do it right because you don't want to, we all know you won't do it right because it will prove yourself wrong.:shadedshu

You want to say you left because of snarky-ass comments, but the only one making snarky-ass comments here is you. So leave again, because of your own snarky-ass comments.

 

Those are the utilities I use when I build a new rig and they're perfectly adequate to my needs. I use them maybe 5 or 6 times a year. I don't bench and I can't even be considered a serious overclocker since I do it mainly to generate more points per machine rather than to really try to max my rigs out.

The point is, I used what I always use. At this point you're basically calling me a liar and a fraud. If I gave a shit about your opinion I might be offended, but since I couldn't possibly care less, feel free to bite me.

Since you are making every effort to act like a child, I'm going to humor you and let you have the last word. Say whatever you want about me and my inferior, primitive methods. Like I said, I would have to respect your opinion in order to be offended by it.

 

Source

I'm sorry twilyth, but even the OCCT website states it is exactly the same as IBT

 

I've already said that I don't doubt the core logic is the same, but the behavior of the 2 programs is clearly different - well, it's clear to me anyway. Maybe I've been hallucinating everytime I've used it and maybe I was hallucinating today. I'm pretty sure I wasn't, but I get the feeling that would be regarded as a more acceptable explanation for my first hand observations. Fine. You can base your decisions on your observations and I'll base my decisions on mine. It is after all a free country.

 

I haven't done any observations yet. this topic interests me and I will do my own observations in time, I'm just trying to go logically here.

both programs put a constant 100% load with the same core logic... I'm trying to understand HOW they could possibly handle it differently, it seems illogical to me. Hopefully tomorrow morning I can do these tests and put in my own experience

 

FYI: I'm running OCCT v 3.1.0 and IBT v. 2.5. I have no idea if they are current. Like I said, I used what I always use.

There are some very clear differences between the programs. OCCT cycles up and down rather than doing enumerated runs like IBT. I've never timed either of them, but I'm pretty sure that the OCCT cycle is shorter than one IBT run. So that might be part of why you get significantly higher temps with IBT. IDK though. That's just a guess.

I've also noticed that when running IBT on max, system responsiveness becomes almost non-existent. With OCCT running, I can use the machine almost normally. Maybe that has to do with more demanding CPU activity under IBT or maybe IBT just uses a lot more memory. I would guess the latter, but again that's just a guess.

 

I'm making every effort to act like a child? Have you even listened to yourself? From the the beginning you have basically called me a liar, or more specifically you flat out called me wrong while showing no proof on the contrary to my statements. Sort of like trolling...

Then you called my comments "snarky-ass" when there was nothing even remotely like that in the comment other than me disagreeing with your statement(and mind you I actually would have had some reason to make a snarky remark since you flat out insulted me in your previous post). But, yeah, I'm the one acting like a child...

 

I really would like to know which TIM to get myself so stop slapping each other even though there would be a reason for it...

So MX2 MX3 are not as good as MX4? I wonder how can Arctic Cooling make some of the best TIM when all their coolers are low budged stuff?

AS5 had is outdated right? OCZ Freeze not as good as MX4?

 

Simple, get a huge tube of Artic Alumina. It is cheap, and is within 1-2°C of the best stuff available.

 

Or get wtv pleases you. idk about you, but I rarely use TIM. My tube of OCZ Freeze is still near full. I liked MX-2 alot also. MX-4 I've never tried

I bought OCZ Freeze cuz I was at Microcenter and not only do you save on shipping, no hassle or time lost convenience sells

 

Yeah, pretty much, there is no real difference between the TIMs. One TIM isn't going to give you a better overclock over the other. There is at most 5°C difference between the best and worst.

 

mlee is right anyway. I need very little voltage increase to hit 3.9ghz on my e8200, but to go to 4.0 take it at the border of the oem rated "safe" range, and the drop in my ram performance made up for the extra 100mhz. It is faster at 3.9.

 

Still there are people that are willing to pay for the "best" performing TIM - and there might be even cases where 5C difference is making a CPU stable or unstable.

To satisfy my curiosity - what is the best stuff in your opinion?

 

Shin-Etsu G751 is the best there is IMO, but at $5 per 1Gram tube, it isn't worth paying for. Not when Arctic Alumina sells for $7 per 14Gram tube and is within 1°.

 

Nice to know now.
One guy on TPU once posted a link to a huge test of TIMs - there where like 50+ different ones in it.
Anyone who could post it again?

 

That's where the Shin Etsu G etv newtekie said won... OCZ Freeze and MX-2 were in the top tier too, and I think so was Artic alumina or wtv, which is why newtekie keeps on recommending it, at 50cents per gram vs 500cents per gram for the sin etsu, that's a 10x price increase

 

Here is an 80-way comparison from 2009.

 

wrong link? http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.p...k=view&id=150&Itemid=62&limit=1&limitstart=12

 

Oh damn. That was the first link I found. Thanks a lot n-ster.

 

I don't recommend it because of the review, I recommend it because I've used them all and Arctic Alumina definitely performs on par with them for an extremely cheap price.

 

i have been playing two world 2 for few days now on max settings , runs flawlessly
no more craches final settings :

fsb 421x 9,5(auto) = 4ghz vcore 1.216v temp at load never passed 55c during hours of playing

memory dram 1,9v timing manual at 5.5.5 15

DRAM STATIC READ CONTROL = DISABLED
DRAM READ TRAINING = DISABLED

CPU & PCIE Spread spectrum=Disable

i left these voltages on auto :

PLL=
FSB voltage=
NBv=
SBv=
PCIE/SATA voltage=

do i need any other manual settings considering these voltages ? or any other things ?
or we are done here ? thanks