Man that's up to you. You were very close to being stable at 4.7 ghz and 1.275. You really backed off. In overclocking we always experiment until we find the lowest voltage that will give genuine stability at a given level of overclock, whether it's the max overclock that CPU will achieve or something less. If you're not interested in finding the highest overclock possible with your cooling solution and want to go with something else then that's up to you.
You are %100 right. But the only reason why i backed off was because my knowledge is not enough to stable it. Since last night i ran the x45 core multiplier i saw that my system is capable of handling the stress. But the only problem is my inexprience in finding the right tweaks. I will go for another stress test tonight with Intel Extreme Tuning Utility. But i theres is only 1 thing id like to ask, since i ran the stress test i didnt see the temperature graph of the test. Does anyone know where i can check that out. I woke up 1 hour later than the test and i didnt see it on the graph
Don't know where the temp graph went to. If you are using the stress test tab then the graph shows at the bottom. But you can download and use HWMonitor (non pro version) to monitor temps. It gives you three columns: current temp, minimum temp and max temp and the same for voltages.
it is not the graph im looking for. I meant graph as a reference. When i woke up the only thing i saw was that stress test was completed. I wish it showed me the highest and lowest temps as a log after it was done.
x47 core multiplier and 1.275 core voltage gave me blue screen after few hours. I will try to go 1.276 as core voltage tonight and hope i dont get a blue screen
The thing with overclocking is that you can raise the multiplier several steps with only modest increases in vcore. To put it another way, voltage scales well with frequency increase up to a point and then it takes a whole big jump in voltage to get one more .1 ghz of speed increase. That's the way it works. You may not be able to get to 4.7 on your present cooling solution because to get it completely stable may require a core voltage amount that drives temps past the safe range. However, you may be able to get stable at 4.6 ghz with considerably less than 1.275. Going from 4.6 to 4.7 may be where that big vcore increase sets in.
4.5 ghz would fit with the statistical envelope of what most people are able to overclock those chips to. You have an average chip it seems; no more, no less. If you had more cooling you could probably get it to a little higher level but in the end how much real performance difference does it make? We do these overclocking things mostly for the personal satisfaction of getting something for nothing or for bragging rights.
One thing that might be confusing in bios is that often there is a choice to be made between "Override Mode" and "Adaptive Mode". I use override mode because with it you can set an absolute voltage value, a fixed value that is, that would correspond to what you were using in IXTU. Adaptive mode will adjust voltages according to the load level but may not give you what you need to be stable.
I thought adaptive is just voltage over stock? So if stock is 1.1v, you needed 1.250 to be stable at a given clock, so with adaptive, you run it at +150mV so when under load, it reaches 1.250. Yes, it varies with load, but if it's not getting enough voltage that is the user's fault... and add more. There isn't anything automated there that would short you voltage.