- Joined
- Apr 20, 2004
- Location
- JAX, Mississauna
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
First manual overclock. FX-9590 Sabertooth 990x R2.0
- Thread starter Samena
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2012
Crud crud crudy.
My bad yo. I am standing corrected once again.
Welp, not sure. 300 mhz variance. Bios and board is good, but not really.
Freak occurrence 300mhz speeeeeed droop. If it was mine, Id be going nuts.
I am trying to hard to help. My apologies!!
No time to even enjoy me own rig. So jealous.
13 hours working today and yesterday.
Fried brain, miss my hobby.
Have a good day fellas. Thanks for understanding.
You guys the bestest. Fo shor.
My bad yo. I am standing corrected once again.
Welp, not sure. 300 mhz variance. Bios and board is good, but not really.
Freak occurrence 300mhz speeeeeed droop. If it was mine, Id be going nuts.
I am trying to hard to help. My apologies!!
No time to even enjoy me own rig. So jealous.
13 hours working today and yesterday.
Fried brain, miss my hobby.
Have a good day fellas. Thanks for understanding.
You guys the bestest. Fo shor.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2004
- Location
- JAX, Mississauna
Runninig out of brain fahtz...
...nearing my end.
1st image from link above > turn off CPU Spread Spectrum
6th image from link above > what are 'choices' for:
CPU Power Phase Control and for CPU Power Response Control
Okay HCG-900Watt seems okay.
Reviews - Antec HCG-900 900W
Okay still was searching in background for anything that could cause the 300MHz appearing cpu speed fluctuation under load. I like S_B find this variance off-putting, so did a good bit of looking around. Even looked for that post where RMA was done on said board model for similar acting under load and many searches later just like "johan", I have given up finding it among that many many posts in that thread elsewhere.
I asked about the 'choices' of the two items above and specified to DISable one for certain.
I don't see the ADD POWER 4 pin molex on the Sabertooth and I am made to understand there is nOt one?? Right you Saberkitty 2.0 users? RoG says use the Add Power 4 pin molex on the CHV boards with FX-9590. Asus certainly says the FX-9590 is g00d to go on the Saberkitty 2.0. In ALL honesty I have never used the ADD power 4 pin molex on my FX-8350 even when P95-ing at 5.2GHz. So likely not a con in the situation we see here.
The only other item I do not see in Samena's bios pic posts is the EPU setting. Is it at another location or nOt even on Saberkitty 2.0? I would certainly think it would/should be DISabled for FX-9590 overclocking.
So once the answers come in for the questions above...well I am about thru. I do not see such loaded cpu speed variance on my CHV-Z board which is the R2.0 of the CHV series and not even on a newer Giga R5 series mobo. So such under load variance maybe caused by the motherboard or who knows what!!! Might even be a bad FX-9590 calling for some crazy shett from the motherboard and it trying to respond. I am out of ideas but not interest. Hehehe.
I guess if it does not do such varing under 'gaming' load which might cause FPS dropping...then nothing to do at this time but run'er.
RGone...
...nearing my end.
1st image from link above > turn off CPU Spread Spectrum
6th image from link above > what are 'choices' for:
CPU Power Phase Control and for CPU Power Response Control
Okay HCG-900Watt seems okay.
Reviews - Antec HCG-900 900W
Okay still was searching in background for anything that could cause the 300MHz appearing cpu speed fluctuation under load. I like S_B find this variance off-putting, so did a good bit of looking around. Even looked for that post where RMA was done on said board model for similar acting under load and many searches later just like "johan", I have given up finding it among that many many posts in that thread elsewhere.
I asked about the 'choices' of the two items above and specified to DISable one for certain.
I don't see the ADD POWER 4 pin molex on the Sabertooth and I am made to understand there is nOt one?? Right you Saberkitty 2.0 users? RoG says use the Add Power 4 pin molex on the CHV boards with FX-9590. Asus certainly says the FX-9590 is g00d to go on the Saberkitty 2.0. In ALL honesty I have never used the ADD power 4 pin molex on my FX-8350 even when P95-ing at 5.2GHz. So likely not a con in the situation we see here.
The only other item I do not see in Samena's bios pic posts is the EPU setting. Is it at another location or nOt even on Saberkitty 2.0? I would certainly think it would/should be DISabled for FX-9590 overclocking.
So once the answers come in for the questions above...well I am about thru. I do not see such loaded cpu speed variance on my CHV-Z board which is the R2.0 of the CHV series and not even on a newer Giga R5 series mobo. So such under load variance maybe caused by the motherboard or who knows what!!! Might even be a bad FX-9590 calling for some crazy shett from the motherboard and it trying to respond. I am out of ideas but not interest. Hehehe.
I guess if it does not do such varing under 'gaming' load which might cause FPS dropping...then nothing to do at this time but run'er.
RGone...
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2012
No the Sabertooth doesn't have the extra 4 pin EPS or the extra molex connector. I'm pretty certain the molex is to add power for PCI lanes. Aids in multi card setups.
As I said earlier , I have only seen this once and if Samena isn't getting stability issues because of it , I'd just let it go. Maybe wait it out a couple years and see how it goes. I would be curious to see windows TM monitoring the CPU live while P95 is running. This could just be a software issue and the CPU might be running fine under load.
As I said earlier , I have only seen this once and if Samena isn't getting stability issues because of it , I'd just let it go. Maybe wait it out a couple years and see how it goes. I would be curious to see windows TM monitoring the CPU live while P95 is running. This could just be a software issue and the CPU might be running fine under load.
I can only see 1 post where Semena has CPU-Z and HWMonitor in the same SS. (I can't see imgur from work) But, is there a chance that CPU-Z is correct but HWM is incorrect? i.e. is CPU-Z fluctuating like we see in the HWM shot? I'm just grabbing at straws as I know software can be a little off at times and we seem to be running low on ideas here.
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2012
Since honesty is a good thing.... I game 99% of the time at all stock minus memory adjustments.
The 100mhz gain does absolutely nothing for frame rates.
Green on. Its fine, auto oc 5ghz, its a good thing.
Loosing performance by 300 mhz or 200mhz drop just isnt my thing.
Some.highest end rigs are just fine as is.
Learning how to OC on something that can Oc such as the fx-8320, would be a better investment as with that, you can actully gain performance.
The 100mhz gain does absolutely nothing for frame rates.
Green on. Its fine, auto oc 5ghz, its a good thing.
Loosing performance by 300 mhz or 200mhz drop just isnt my thing.
Some.highest end rigs are just fine as is.
Learning how to OC on something that can Oc such as the fx-8320, would be a better investment as with that, you can actully gain performance.
- Thread Starter
- #148
I think I will actually revert back to default settings. But before I do. Here's the images you asked for Rgone...
and yes this is definitely a gaming machine. I plan on doing some web design in the future though.
and yes this is definitely a gaming machine. I plan on doing some web design in the future though.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2004
- Location
- JAX, Mississauna
1st image set CPU Power Phase Control to Extreme.
2nd image is NOT of CPU Power Response Control. You show CPU/NB Power Response Control and not the one right above it.
RGone...
- Thread Starter
- #150
something i just noticed and forgot to mention earlier... in HWmonitor my package temp is constantly changing going all the way up to 31ºC down to 9ºC and sometimes lower. Rapid decent and elevation in temp. I hope this isn't actually happening and it's HWmonitor going haywire. But then again before we started this process of OC it wasn't doing this. Package was more stable temp wise. IDK what could be causing this.
sometimes, more often than not, when i'm taking these BIOS pics my pc is freezing while in BIOS taking the pics. Like soon as I save them. Why is this happening. Anyone know?
sorry i wasn't paying enough attention.
sometimes, more often than not, when i'm taking these BIOS pics my pc is freezing while in BIOS taking the pics. Like soon as I save them. Why is this happening. Anyone know?
sorry i wasn't paying enough attention.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2012
The sensor on the cpu for the cores is not accurate until the temp is into the 40c range. Not sure why, but AMD admits it's faulty until a higher temp is reached. Mines reading a low of 3c right now with a max temp at 42c which is likely accurate enough being close to the Cpu socket temp. So nothing to worry about there.
Not sure about bios screen shots and freezing, or perhaps what you mean by it. It freezes for a second and then is usable or is it freezing and not usable? I assume it's just taking it's time saving the image is all. No worries if the system is still usable after a temporary freeze that lasts only a couple of seconds.
Any how, I hope your enjoying the rig at least and having some fun gaming. That's what it's all bout' in the end. Just simply having fun!
Not sure about bios screen shots and freezing, or perhaps what you mean by it. It freezes for a second and then is usable or is it freezing and not usable? I assume it's just taking it's time saving the image is all. No worries if the system is still usable after a temporary freeze that lasts only a couple of seconds.
Any how, I hope your enjoying the rig at least and having some fun gaming. That's what it's all bout' in the end. Just simply having fun!
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2004
- Location
- JAX, Mississauna
Okay already said to set CPU Power Phase Control to Extreme. This should not idle the VRM phases and be better able to handle a load.
CPU Power Response Control set to FAST. < This setting I now what it says but why would you want less than the best Power Response? Yet I know there is a frequency that the cpu power phases can be set to and with it set to Extreme as above...I just hesitate to go to the highest setting.
CPU Power Phase Control to extreme might add a little heat to the VRMs that could show up in the CPU/Socket temp but on my CHV-Z it is not more than about a degree celsius. So should be nO worry.
Those are the last two settings I notice in bios that might make the cpu more voltage to cpu stable and remove any tendency to jump cpu speed around.
Windows Power Management has not been viewed BUT set to Performance Mode should be just that in that windows should not be jerking the cpu speed around at all.
You mention core temps jumping around. Mine don't if that is an answer. Not the core/package temps as you described anyway.
S_B asked about the bios freezing or just a slight hesitation during F-12 save to Usb stick. It takes more than 3 seconds to write the image to the Usb stick. I never tried to move mouse while saving with F12. So no idea if that is what you are seeing.
Let me put it one of two ways: 1.) Get on with your gaming. 2.) Contact Asus and see if you can RMA the motherboard for odd acting unlike any of your buddies rigs. Good enough cause as any.
RGone...
CPU Power Response Control set to FAST. < This setting I now what it says but why would you want less than the best Power Response? Yet I know there is a frequency that the cpu power phases can be set to and with it set to Extreme as above...I just hesitate to go to the highest setting.
CPU Power Phase Control to extreme might add a little heat to the VRMs that could show up in the CPU/Socket temp but on my CHV-Z it is not more than about a degree celsius. So should be nO worry.
Those are the last two settings I notice in bios that might make the cpu more voltage to cpu stable and remove any tendency to jump cpu speed around.
Windows Power Management has not been viewed BUT set to Performance Mode should be just that in that windows should not be jerking the cpu speed around at all.
You mention core temps jumping around. Mine don't if that is an answer. Not the core/package temps as you described anyway.
S_B asked about the bios freezing or just a slight hesitation during F-12 save to Usb stick. It takes more than 3 seconds to write the image to the Usb stick. I never tried to move mouse while saving with F12. So no idea if that is what you are seeing.
Let me put it one of two ways: 1.) Get on with your gaming. 2.) Contact Asus and see if you can RMA the motherboard for odd acting unlike any of your buddies rigs. Good enough cause as any.
RGone...
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2012
AN RMA?? Something that had not crossed my mind, interesting suggestion..
After noticing I had the wrong mobo from Asus NOT being R2.0.... and then noticing THAT R1.0 did NOT support the FX-9590.... makes me say Hmmmm.
What exactly did they change with R2.0 for support of such a big nasty chip? Just the bios? Physically either board look the same to me. Just curious, perhaps off topic.... but none the less from the get go.... The R1.0 didn't support the chip.
Throwing a curve ball for thought..... Perhaps it's not the best choice in board? I'm not coming out and saying it is NOT the best board for choice, just trying to understand if this is just a possibility in the ending out come.
I'd love to hear how this rig reacts during gaming.
After noticing I had the wrong mobo from Asus NOT being R2.0.... and then noticing THAT R1.0 did NOT support the FX-9590.... makes me say Hmmmm.
What exactly did they change with R2.0 for support of such a big nasty chip? Just the bios? Physically either board look the same to me. Just curious, perhaps off topic.... but none the less from the get go.... The R1.0 didn't support the chip.
Throwing a curve ball for thought..... Perhaps it's not the best choice in board? I'm not coming out and saying it is NOT the best board for choice, just trying to understand if this is just a possibility in the ending out come.
I'd love to hear how this rig reacts during gaming.
R1.0 supports the 9590.......just not officially. My ran just fine.
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2012
It did! quite interesting. But I suppose with a chiller, it would run fine eh?
Tried mine on air cooling. Stock quad heat pipe opteron with stock fan no upgrades. It was/is a nightmare.
On ambient liquid, I can't see a "real" overclock happening especially with AIO 120.2 rad or less.
On travels through this forum, I noticed 1.45v was about the tops for most overclockers and being happy around the 4400 - 4600mhz range with really nice temps. You won't see this with AMD FX-9590, and it doesn't matter what board you want to use either lol.
If it wasn't supported...at least to an extent, it wouldn't even post. Wouldn't matter what form of cooling was on it. Chiller definitely helps the clockage though.
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2012
Ya that's rare when that happens. I had thought about trying the FX-9590 in the M5A78L MX PLUS, but thought to do otherwise because I have the FZ. Perhaps I should have.....
Cool beans.
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2009
They are both the same chip just AMD has done the overclocking for you but the heat generated as you have seen is often too much for the average user even at stock, never mind when OC'd. To a man here we all have custom water cooling when we OC to these upper OC limits
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2004
- Location
- JAX, Mississauna
Good and accurate information in your...
...post above Bassnut. I guess in a way, most of us that help in here try and tell it like it is for the long-haul. No watered-down pablum about how less cooling can still work okay with these heat monster FX processors and certainly so when ALL 8 cores come into use when overclocked like we all seem to do. Real c00l is in. Real c00l is just about the only way to have a super relationship with an FX-9590 unless you can keep your hands out of the bios and use the FX-9590 only as AMD intended it to be used when they brought the FX-9590 to market.
Let me say a little to background the review/article below. There are those of us that spend possibly too much time in searching background information and results from users from all over. I may fit such category.
I watched the release of the FX-9590 processor. I read a 'lot' of reviews. Most reviews were the same old pablum from most reviewers. However if you have followed a lot of my writing you will remember I said no reason to buy the FX-9590 since it did n0t appear to be 'super silicon' and thus a prime candidate for overclocking. I said just a very very few reviews of the FX-9590 told the real truth.
Well hokiealumnus was one of the few that told it like it truly was about the FX-9590. How there was way much heat to contend with and that even with his custom water cooling loop he was barely able to reach 5.0GHz with ultimate stability.
HIS older/original water loop is used as the comparison for the loop he is testing in the review below. Yes on Intel in the review below but he is pleasingly surprised at the less temps he sees now with the EK L360 Kit which is not even the bad boy kit from EK.
So now if you have paid attention you know the more complete background behind the review below. His original FX-9590 review was done with his older loop and now he tested a new loop that is; by a good bit, better than his original loop and makes the EK non-Extreme kit tested below a very good candidate for cooling an FX-9590. This is not to say that there may not be other possible solutions, but at least here is a solution that has 'history' surrounding it.
I, as can many of the others that hang around in the AMD forum sections, can spec out a complete loop for ourselves. But a kit is often a better option for beginners. Especially a kit that is not just another AiO kit that is just barely entry level water cooling.
Article by hokiealumnus @ OCF done in Feb 2014.
EK WaterBlocks L360 Water Cooling Kit Review
You are now returned to your regularly scheduled programming. Ole Faht out.
RGone...
...post above Bassnut. I guess in a way, most of us that help in here try and tell it like it is for the long-haul. No watered-down pablum about how less cooling can still work okay with these heat monster FX processors and certainly so when ALL 8 cores come into use when overclocked like we all seem to do. Real c00l is in. Real c00l is just about the only way to have a super relationship with an FX-9590 unless you can keep your hands out of the bios and use the FX-9590 only as AMD intended it to be used when they brought the FX-9590 to market.
Let me say a little to background the review/article below. There are those of us that spend possibly too much time in searching background information and results from users from all over. I may fit such category.
I watched the release of the FX-9590 processor. I read a 'lot' of reviews. Most reviews were the same old pablum from most reviewers. However if you have followed a lot of my writing you will remember I said no reason to buy the FX-9590 since it did n0t appear to be 'super silicon' and thus a prime candidate for overclocking. I said just a very very few reviews of the FX-9590 told the real truth.
Well hokiealumnus was one of the few that told it like it truly was about the FX-9590. How there was way much heat to contend with and that even with his custom water cooling loop he was barely able to reach 5.0GHz with ultimate stability.
HIS older/original water loop is used as the comparison for the loop he is testing in the review below. Yes on Intel in the review below but he is pleasingly surprised at the less temps he sees now with the EK L360 Kit which is not even the bad boy kit from EK.
So now if you have paid attention you know the more complete background behind the review below. His original FX-9590 review was done with his older loop and now he tested a new loop that is; by a good bit, better than his original loop and makes the EK non-Extreme kit tested below a very good candidate for cooling an FX-9590. This is not to say that there may not be other possible solutions, but at least here is a solution that has 'history' surrounding it.
I, as can many of the others that hang around in the AMD forum sections, can spec out a complete loop for ourselves. But a kit is often a better option for beginners. Especially a kit that is not just another AiO kit that is just barely entry level water cooling.
Article by hokiealumnus @ OCF done in Feb 2014.
EK WaterBlocks L360 Water Cooling Kit Review
You are now returned to your regularly scheduled programming. Ole Faht out.
RGone...
Similar threads
