-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
First overclock
- Thread starter Rabcor
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2008
Your confusion about the instability setting in when you try to increase the frequency even a little beyond 4.6 could be addressed by wingman99's question.
It could also be due to the fact that have "hit the wall." Every CPU has a point where the necessary voltage increase scales pretty well with the increase in frequency. But then you reach a point where just to get another .1 ghz requires much more voltage than the previous one and you just can't get there either because the voltage becomes excessive and unsafe or the temps do. I'ts not a linear thing by any means.
It could also be due to the fact that have "hit the wall." Every CPU has a point where the necessary voltage increase scales pretty well with the increase in frequency. But then you reach a point where just to get another .1 ghz requires much more voltage than the previous one and you just can't get there either because the voltage becomes excessive and unsafe or the temps do. I'ts not a linear thing by any means.
- Thread Starter
- #23
I see, well, even if I set the BCLK to 100 again and up the multiplier to 47 to get a 4.7 clock, not even 1.32v will be stable. And I only really nudged the BCLK (it's at 100.8 now) to get up th the 4.636ghz I'm at now, it seems like I might indeed just have hit a wall somewhere around 4.64ghz.
I wasn't quite sure whether this was the case or not, which is why I am asking
I wasn't quite sure whether this was the case or not, which is why I am asking
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2008
I see, well, even if I set the BCLK to 100 again and up the multiplier to 47 to get a 4.7 clock, not even 1.32v will be stable. And I only really nudged the BCLK (it's at 100.8 now) to get up th the 4.636ghz I'm at now, it seems like I might indeed just have hit a wall somewhere around 4.64ghz.
I wasn't quite sure whether this was the case or not, which is why I am asking
Doesn't matter how you do it, whether with multiplier or with bclk. The wall is the wall. It's not worth dramatically shortening the life of your CPU for one more .1 ghz even if you have the cooling to pull it off. I mean really, how much real world difference will you see between 4.6 and 4.7 ghz?
- Thread Starter
- #27
Your bios got corrupted? Sounds pretty serious, i didn't know it could do that so easily. You definitely mean bios corrupted and not just a failed overclock status right?
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2008
I should think that was coincidence unless you were also trying to flash the bios.
Depends on how high it was. BCLK overclocks all of the buss's. It can absolutely corrupt a bios if too high.
Absolutely......!!!!
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2008
Hum! Never heard that before. You can bet I won't do it to any of my stuff anymore on these newer platforms. Done lots of fsb overclocking in former times and never had an issue. But then it may be the case that fsb and bclk are not the same when it comes to this issue.
I thought Skylake BCLK was disconnected from the PCI-E Bus? So I was overclocking to 109 BCLK and it worked fine, then I ran 110 BCLK and I heard horrible pitch beeping sound, then PC finely rebooted to default, lost all my presets in Bios had to set them all again. I won't mess with BCLK again that was close..
I wonder what that pitch of a beeping sound is compared to the standard sound from failed overclocking or beep codes on the Gigabyte boards?
