SOLVED Can I get more out of my 4170?

[Osnaps]

Greetings all!

I would like to start out by saying thanks and +1 to Obsidius (op of thread I got info from) and trents and jagged steel (great information from you guys)

After reading that thread, I was able to succesfully oc my 4170 to 4.6 stable on air @1.43 on vcore. (2 hour P95 stable)

Temps were good I believe, 35c on cpu, 36c on MB, and core temps maxed out at 50c but stayed around 48-49c for the most part.

My voltage in BIOS is set to 1.425650 and HWmonitor showed it running @1.41 w/ max of 1.43, CPUz showed 1.43.

My NB frequency I left at 2200mhz and upped the HT link to 2600.

I tried for 4.7, but got errors all the way up to 1.5 on vcore, and temps got close to 60c (58-59c for most part), tried tweaking ram voltage a tic, underclocking the ram and upping fsb some, leaving ram at regular speed and upping fsb a tic. All those while playing with the voltage to see if I could get anything more.

I did have a 4715 (23 x 205) go for about 40 mins before a core stopped, but I cannot remember how the temps looked though. ( I wanna say about 51-52c for core, but not 100%)

CPU and Mb temps never climbed higher than the above, is that normal? (I thought they would've gotten a little higher) and not sure what TMPIN1 is in HWmonitor it went up from 44 to 67c. ( not sure if there is something actually there for the sensor to read)

Is there anything else I can try or do I need to look at maybe going liquid cooling for lower temps before trying again?

 

[keny]

4.6 to 4.7 seems to be the sweet spot for these chips, after that you need to really hike the vcore up to make them stable at the higher clock, even 100mhz bump can take up to and beyond .05v to stabalise which is a fair hike for only 100mhz and the heat created is substantial (as you know) and a lot of the time just not worth it, but the 1.5v you have tried is not what I would call a high vcore for these FX chips, but it all depends on cooling and you're looking close to the golden 55c at where you're at so I would maybe give a bit more vcore, but in reality it probably won't net you much more , if any, and getting rid of the heat becomes a pita. I think you have done good where you are and it's a tidy clock speed you've managed to get stable, a 100mhz more (which is probably all you will be able to acheive) in my opinion is not worth it and will be negligible in performance terms anyway.

Edit: just read again and realised @ 1.5v you were pushing 60c so scratch the part where I suggested bump up the vcore a bit, I thought you were going up to 51c @ 1.5v
Mark

 

[Osnaps]

Thanks for that keny! I do have a question that is probably silly and will have no effect. I was wondering if buying a faster ram (1600 probably) Dropping it to 1333 and lowering multi and upping fsb, would it be possible to eek out more and not overdo the ram and possibly help with the heat generated. I guess it would really all come down to whats needed on the vcore.

 

[keny]

I don't think you would coax much more from it without extra voltage to be honest, you normaly get a rough figure from multi clocking and maybe get a few more MHz from the reference clock but it will usually fail stability tests around the same clock speed.

 

[Osnaps]

Ahh i gotcha Thanks for the reply and the info, think I'm going to call it victory and roll with it lol!

 

[RGone]

Ahh i gotcha Thanks for the reply and the info, think I'm going to call it victory and roll with it lol!

I think your idea of beng very close to a Max Cpu Frequency is good. "Keny" gave excellent advice.

However I have one bothersome detail I notice in what you say about a couple of your settings. You say >> My NB frequency I left at 2200mhz and upped the HT link to 2600. <> it is my understanding from some users that their boards will not allow for such a setting to be actually done in bios. This is what I am believing >> NB speed can go higher and must never go lower than HT Link speed.

So my understanding is that CPU/NB frequency should never be lower than HT Frequency. Some boards are said to not even allow such mis-setting. Maybe you set such in bios but motherboard ignored it. You might want to take a look at those two settings and clarify information and settings.

Luck man. RGone...ster.

 

[Osnaps]

I think your idea of beng very close to a Max Cpu Frequency is good. "Keny" gave excellent advice.

However I have one bothersome detail I notice in what you say about a couple of your settings. You say >> My NB frequency I left at 2200mhz and upped the HT link to 2600. <> it is my understanding from some users that their boards will not allow for such a setting to be actually done in bios. This is what I am believing >> NB speed can go higher and must never go lower than HT Link speed.

So my understanding is that CPU/NB frequency should never be lower than HT Frequency. Some boards are said to not even allow such mis-setting. Maybe you set such in bios but motherboard ignored it. You might want to take a look at those two settings and clarify information and settings.

Luck man. RGone...ster.

I'll have to double check that when I get home from work. I wrote it all down this morning before posting. I am almost pretty sure though in the bios it allowed me to up the HT Link to 13 for 2600. The only time I ever messed with/ saw the cpu nb frequency change was upping the fsb (I think.... snaps... I'll definitely double check on that and get back)

When I wrote it down this morning though, the cpu np frequency was at 2200.

Thanks man

 

[RGone]

There can be...

I'll have to double check that when I get home from work. I wrote it all down this morning before posting. I am almost pretty sure though in the bios it allowed me to up the HT Link to 13 for 2600. The only time I ever messed with/ saw the cpu nb frequency change was upping the fsb (I think.... snaps... I'll definitely double check on that and get back)

When I wrote it down this morning though, the cpu np frequency was at 2200.

Thanks man

Can be differences in what certain specs are called from motherboard to motherboard. I know it has been pretty common knowledge for a few years that AMD processors should always have the CPU/NB faster than the HT Link frequency. In fact as I said, some boards would not even allow the setting CPU/NB slower than the HT Link frequency.

I have no real hands-on knowledge of the naming conventions used in your MSI bios, so I only suggested that you verify my 'wondering' for your ownself.

I know that increasing CPU/NB by some amount; that varies from board to board and cpu to cpu, can increase memory performance and thus other performance also.

It also seems that the amount of CPU/NB that can be increased on FX-series is not as great as on earlier type AMD cpus of the last couple of years. It is a good idea to check your settings and their naming closely. Be well.

RGone...ster.

 

[Osnaps]

Ill definitely check and get back, youve got me curious as well. I just saw a forum thread from here as well that mentioned that.

C'mon 5 o'clock, curiosity is peaked, testing to be done and Sam Adams Octoberfest to enjoy!

 

[wagex]

what sam october fest is here? i know where im stopping on my way home from work ;D
/end thread derail

 

[Osnaps]

hahaha never a derailment when octoberfest is involved

After i get home and check those values, if the nb is at 2200 like it think, should i try upping it and lowering the ht link? Or leave ht alone and up the nb to match the ht?

 

[Osnaps]

Ok, now that I am at the house, heres an update from my bios:

CPU FSB freq : 200
CPU Ratio : 23
adjusted cpu freq (greyed out) 4600 mhz

CPU- NB Ratio (set to auto) - (I can change this setting if needs be)
adjusted cpu nb freq (greyed out) 2200mhz

HT Link Speed : 13
adjusted HT Link freq(greyed out) 2600mhz

Should I up the ratio for the cpu-nb to increase its speed or just lower the hyper link back down to even?


Will be back in a couple hours to check, bout to get in a round of disc golf!

 

[Osnaps]

I upper my cpu nb from 2200 to 2600 and left HT link at 2600. Everything seemed pretty responsive and snappy. Not sure if i need to retest stability again with that change or if its still gtg.

 

[trents]

Yes, you definitely need to retest for stability after any overclock change. At least two hours of Prime95 blend. Most FX overclockers report that these chips don't take as much overclocking of the CPUNB as the Phenom IIs did. The feedback of I have seen suggests that 2400 is about the max for stability but I haven't seen a lot of feedback concerning this particular parameter so we would be interested to here what you find out.

 

[RGone]

This may help:
(CPU Multi) * (FSB) = (CPU Freq)
(CPU Multi) / (Memory Divider) = (Divisor Ratio)
(CPU Freq) / (Divisor Ratio) = (RAM MHz) (* 2 = DDR MHz)
(NB Multi) * (FSB) = (NB Freq)
(HT Multi) * (FSB) = (HT Freq) **
**note: the HT Multiplier is usually shown as a MHz option rather than a multiplier
of the FSB, but in fact, it is a default of 10X the FSB
Also of note is that your HT *MUST* be < or = the resulting NB Frequency or you will not be stable.

That has been the guiding reference for a few years now. Many motherboards are set to 'keep' this relationship >> HT *MUST* be < or = the resulting NB Frequency or you will not be stable.

Oddly though this becomes apparent >> Model number = FX-8120
Bus speed = One 2600 MHz 16-bit HyperTransport link. That is from the spec page for AMD FX-8120 and says the HT Link speed is 2600Mhz by default. That is a pretty high HT Link speed. But when reading about actually overclocking the FX-8120, it is pretty well stated that dropping the HT Link speed 'even' into the 1900Mhz range or lower can allow for a faster cpu overclock.

I am pretty certain that my Asus CHV at default has the CPU/NB faster than the HT Link speed as we have been schooled for a while. Reading many users overclock results it seems that CPU/NB of much more than 2600Mhz has not been stable on some FX-series processors. On Thuban CPU/NB of 3000mhz was not unheard of though. I think there has been a change in just exactly what works best for FX-series processors from Thuban just as there was from Denab to Thuban. Each of those CPU/NB frequency and relation of CPU/NB to HT Link Frequency was different from Denab to Thuban and now Thuban to FX because of the newer IMC.

After reading thru many FX overclock guides and user posted overclock specs I have come to believe that HT *MUST* be < or = the resulting NB Frequency is still a good idea. I also have seen less HT Frequecy allow my 8 core FX to clock higher Mhz wise. If that is true all then this relationship is still very much true >> HT *MUST* be < or = the resulting NB Frequency.

I always test bold new settings that I have adjusted in my bios and that would include for sure raising the CPU/NB frequency since it has a direct bearing on memory stability and L3 cache speed in the processor itself.

I guess the short answer for me at least is that I still use this relationship >> HT *MUST* be < or = the resulting NB Frequency even with my FX-8120.

 

[wagex]

\derail
dude it was in stock, thank you ;D

 

[Osnaps]

@trents - I will test that 2600/2600 tonight when I get home. I did run a 10 min s&g test to see if it would instantly crash P95, it didnt and I dropped in a 2hr gaming session w/ GW2 which ran pretty well. ( I know thats not a real basis for a test )

@RGone - Very interesting, after giving the 2600/2600 a run, I'll drop the cpu nb to 2400 and HT Link down to 2000 and see what happens. Im curious if that might help me squeeze a tad more out (maybe 4.7 or if I'm lucky my initial goal of 4.8) Provided I dont have to bump the vcore to much more.

@wagex - Always happy to be of service with friendly PSA's such as that lol!

 

[Osnaps]

Looking back, I also believe when I first started the cpu nb was at 2200 as was the HT link. So it did start with matching values. I cant remember what made me up the HT link in the first place. I want to say i read something that said it helped some with a fps increase for games.

 

[RGone]

Looking back, I also believe when I first started the cpu nb was at 2200 as was the HT link. So it did start with matching values. I cant remember what made me up the HT link in the first place. I want to say i read something that said it helped some with a fps increase for games.

HT Link Frequency can have a minor effect on Video performance, but most that I have seen counseling about overclocking have said it is oh so minor. Most of that counseling was done though very broadly and generally said to have CPU/NB faster than HT Link Frequency elsewhere in their advice write-up.

And then there is that situation where they say you 'often/sometimes' can get a little more cpu mhz if you lower the HT Link Frequency. So there you are out on the balance beam again. Luck man.

RGone...ster.

PS: No I am not surprised that initially the board was set to equal CPU/NB / HT Link Frequency. I think most of the board makers have or are writing the bios that way by default.

 

[keny]

My default HT is way higher than the CPU/NB, there must be a reason why it's set to 2600 as oppose to 2000 to match the NB ?