-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
SOLVED NEED ADVICE ASAP!
- Thread starter Silver_Pharaoh
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2002
- Location
- San Antonio, TX
There's some talk about a higher minimum FPS (and overall) in gaming with faster speeds, but it's pretty small. Just people looking for the extra oomph.
Personally I got 2133 on the cheap, might as well run at those speeds. I got 8GB of 2133 at 2133, and 16GB of 2133 running at 2200 10-12-12-34. I ran that at 2400 for a while, but I was having some board issues where it wouldn't boot correctly.
Personally I got 2133 on the cheap, might as well run at those speeds. I got 8GB of 2133 at 2133, and 16GB of 2133 running at 2200 10-12-12-34. I ran that at 2400 for a while, but I was having some board issues where it wouldn't boot correctly.
OP
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Thread Starter
- #103
That's kinda what I thought.
Well I'm running Memtest with the timings at stock 9-9-9-24 but now at 1666 Mhz.
It passed Memtest at 1333 7-7-7-24, and I'm
'd that it actually passed. Perhaps this cheap RAM isn't as crappy as I thought it was.I'll probably tighten timings @ 1666 Mhz and call the memory OCing done. (If of course memtest confirms it can run at 1666 first
)
OP
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Thread Starter
- #104
Oh? 2400 was too fast for the board?
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2002
- Location
- San Antonio, TX
I guess. If I ever had a crash (like in BF4), it wouldn't reboot properly. Had to shut off the PSU and turn it back on... sometimes I had to play the RAM shuffle to get it to boot at default speeds and just reapply the settings. Plus I think I was running at CL11. Not worth my time. With 2200 I have none of those issues.
Prior to that I was running 1600 9-9-9-24. Can't say that I've noticed any significant difference.
Prior to that I was running 1600 9-9-9-24. Can't say that I've noticed any significant difference.
OP
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Thread Starter
- #106
Well ~1630 Mhz @ 9-9-9-24 will be my final settings.
Won't boot at 8-8-8-24 and I don't feel like giving the RAM extra voltage.
Just running Memtest to confirm it's stable.
I also rose the BCLK to 103.1 Mhz for an even 3.4 Ghz
Just gotta run Prime95 Blend for a but to confirm that, then I'm all out of things to overclock
So that pretty much closes this thread then, there's little more I can do without the risk of data corruption.
Thanks for the help & Advice guys!!
You guys rock!
OP
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Thread Starter
- #107
Prime95 Blend locked my rig up 
So I increased Load Line Calibrations from "Auto" to "Medium"
Cpu-Z reports 1.116 volts Vcore......
That's still less than the 1.16 Vcore I set in the BIOS.
Should I set the LLC to "High" or even "Extreme"??
P95 Blend is running, so far no issues.... (It's been 5 minutes though )
So I increased Load Line Calibrations from "Auto" to "Medium"
Cpu-Z reports 1.116 volts Vcore......
That's still less than the 1.16 Vcore I set in the BIOS.
Should I set the LLC to "High" or even "Extreme"??
P95 Blend is running, so far no issues.... (It's been 5 minutes though
)
OP
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Thread Starter
- #109
Maybe, but it's been running Prime blend for over 1 hour now, no issues.
So that LLC seemed to have fixed that issue.
Question is, should I lave it on medium or set it to high or something?
Cpu-z reports Vcore of 1.116 but I set Vcore in BIOS to 1.16.....
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2010
Sounds like you're dealing with a hell of a lot of vDrop (voltage Drop from what you are setting in BIOS and what it is actually giving you). Are you showing 1.116 at idle or load (should be a different voltage under load vs. idle)?
Last edited:
OP
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Thread Starter
- #111
Load.
I went ahead and set the LLC to High, now CPU-Z reports 1.14 Vcore much closer to the 1.16 I set in the BIOS.
The next step is (turbo?) or extreme
EDIT: Actually it bounces around from 1.128 Volts to 1.14 volts now
And while idle, Vcore bounces around from 1.14 to 1.152 volts.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2010
Load.
I went ahead and set the LLC to High, now CPU-Z reports 1.14 Vcore much closer to the 1.16 I set in the BIOS.
The next step is (turbo?) or extreme
EDIT: Actually it bounces around from 1.128 Volts to 1.14 volts now
And while idle, Vcore bounces around from 1.15 to 1.52 volts.
Well the difference in load voltage is pretty good (0.012V). I don't usually see much better than 0.02-0.03V on most PC's I run, and around 0.05-0.06V at worst (no LLC option on the board).
You say it's bouncing between 1.15 and 1.52V at idle though?
It shouldn't be anywhere near 1.52V when it's set to 1.16V. That's just odd. Unless that was a typo.
OP
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Thread Starter
- #113
OP
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Thread Starter
- #115
Stock voltage @ 2.8 Ghz was 1.28 volts
brb lemme hibernate this thing. I hate WD Green drives. Worst idea: put my OS on them
OP
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Thread Starter
- #116
Okay I'm back
I set the Vcore to 1.14 in the BIOS, and
I set the PLL to "Turbo" (next step is extreme)
@ idle bounces between 1.128 and 1.14
While folding, it'll stay at 1.128 volts
Under Prime95 blend it stays at 1.14
I set the Vcore to 1.14 in the BIOS, and
I set the PLL to "Turbo" (next step is extreme)
@ idle bounces between 1.128 and 1.14
While folding, it'll stay at 1.128 volts
Under Prime95 blend it stays at 1.14
Last edited:
OP
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Thread Starter
- #118
Yup. For now though, this is great
No need to upgrade my rig for a few more years now!
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2010
Okay I'm back
I set the Vcore to 1.14 in the BIOS, and
I set the PLL to "Turbo" (next step is extreme)
@ idle bounces between 1.128 and 1.14
While folding, it'll stay at 1.128 volts
Under Prime95 blend it stays at 1.14
Sounds good mate. You're getting the same results I found. Seems these non-K chips are pretty similar when it comes to voltage required to remain stable.
Similar threads
