• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

X5670 Overclocking Same as i7 930?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Atomic_Sheep

Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Ok, well since I think I have broken my i7 930. I did get it up to 4Ghz on air with reasonable temps after which point I started playing around with the overclock and then it stopped being stable. Happy that it still runs at stock speeds but I think that's pretty much all it can do now. Not sure how that can be possible but that's what I'm experiencing.

Anyway, picked up myself one of these X5670 Xeons, second hand obviously, and was wondering... is the over clocking on these chips more of the same i.e. the same process as for the i7 930?

I followed these two guides for my i7 930 over clock:

https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2010/07/a-beginners-guide-to-overclocking-your-intel-processor/

http://www.overclockers.com/3-step-guide-overclock-core-i3-i5-i7/

Not sure why my overclock went awry (I thought I followed the process to the t, temps during the overclock never went above 86 from memory under Prime95 on the hottest core, hot I know, but all the cool kids were doing it too), but going to give it another go with the X5670. Hopefully they are binned better than the i7s. I'm hearing they run at less power at idle and also run cooler which should help with the overclock. I'm hoping to get the same 4Ghz. But I'm hearing they go up to 4.4Ghz but I'm not sure whether that's on water. I'm not changing to water, so sounds like 4Ghz should be easily attainable on these things.

EDIT: I'm confused, some sites are saying my motherboard isn't on the list of being able to support the X5670, other sites suggest it should work. Anyone know what the deal is here? My mobo is X58A-UD3R Rev 1.
 
Last edited:

EarthDog

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Location
Buckeyes!
Should be the same, yeah. Voltages will obviously vary with the cpu as it does with every cpu. :)

As far as your mobo and cpu support, look it up at the mobo website. If it isnt on the list, id be concerned about support.
 

UltraTaco

Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2017
Check BIOS release notes, they may have added support with later vesion. Flash to latest and it'll work?
 

EarthDog

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Location
Buckeyes!
BIOS release notes typically (do they ever?) do not show specific CPUs it will support. The CPU Support list I mentioned to look at previously does. ;)

I looked, and that processor is not on the support list, so no flashing will officially support it.
 
OP
A

Atomic_Sheep

Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Yer, I think it's not officially supported, but I found someone with my MB who chucked in that processor and it seemed to work. So looks like it's a go.
 
Last edited:

UltraTaco

Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2017
Go for it, mate! BTW, I have 920. Had her clocked 4ghz ht off. Now down to 3.67 for better fuel economy.
 
OP
A

Atomic_Sheep

Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
It works :), for some reason the stock speed in auto mode is 3.2Ghz, the multi was x24 even though my max is set to 22. CPU-Z confirms that it's working at 3.2, anyway Cinebench went from 463 to 717, yes it's not 2.93Ghz vs 2.93Ghz but the extra two cores make a difference.

20180302_101615.jpg

Now I need to reseat the CPU because the temps are all over the place. I only see 3 cores in real temp, the coldest is high 10s low 20s at idle, the 2nd core is at 35 at idle.
 

UltraTaco

Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2017
It's probably "turbo always on" board. My 920 is 20x, but turbo is always emabled, so real max is 21x.

...yeah, you definitely need some thermal paste, that bubble wrap most likely just traps heat.
 
OP
A

Atomic_Sheep

Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Hmm, tried reapplying thermal paste, got the same result the second time. Pretty confident that I got good thermal paste spread. Not sure why there is such a difference of core temps. Core 2 is hot :(.

Core temps.jpg

EDIT: hmm looks like xeon isn"t overclocking as expected.

I reduced multipliers for my CPU, memory and QPI because I wanted to start playing around with the bclock. It wouldn't post. I had all the power savings modes turned off, so after a CMOS reset, I thought I'll do the same except keep all the power saving modes on as per default. Still no beuno. Still not posting. My uncore is x2 of DRAM i.e 1600 vs 800, so that's all good... hmm...
 
Last edited:
OP
A

Atomic_Sheep

Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Well, I managed to get an overclock which is a start. bclock 160, memory multi x10 @1600, uncore x20 @3200, I think my QPI was x36 @5760, processor was set at x22 and with turbo boost up to x24 @3.8Ghz. I set my memory timings as per my previous overclocking attempts, slight tighter timings and 1.54V. Vcore set to normal 1.225 and DVID set to 0.075V so that's a vcore of 1.3. Those settings seemed to work, it posted and booted and passed 5 minutes of OCCT and Prime 95 (vcore didn't exceed 1.28v).

Next, it stopped posting again. I just changed bclock to 170 and reduced all the multipliers by 1 notch, keeping CPU multi at 22. No post.

Next, I tried bclock 200, memory multi 8 @1600, uncore 16 @3200, QPI x36 @ 7.2Ghz and CPU multi at x20 @4000. No post.

I can't see a pattern why it posted in the first instance but not in the next two. I thought maybe I need to keep my uncore at 3200 and memory at 1600, but that didn't work as could be seen in the 3 attempt. I also know that the CPU posts and boots if I have a multi less than 22. It no longer turbo boosts but it posts and boots, at least at a multi of x21. So hmm, not sure what is going on.
 
OP
A

Atomic_Sheep

Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Every time I reset CMOS (after it fails to post), I revert back to pretty much default settings. The only difference is that if I go with completely default settings, then the computer doesn't boot into windows, says the OS is missing. I don't remember what I changed, but basically the HDDs are getting recognised with default settings, but other than that, I think they should be pretty close to default.
 
Last edited:

damienslc

New Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Kind of a rare breed, us still running X58 boards in 2018, but I just swapped out my OC i7 920 for a Xeon X5660 running at stock settings and here is what I've observed. I have the Gigabyte EX58- UD4P board which let me run my 920 @ 3.6 ghz, but I cannot change anything when it comes to my X5660 as far as settings go. I had to modify the BIOS to just get the processor to work, but stock performance on a Xeon for this socket far surpasses OC performance of the i7 of that generation. My advice: don't worry about overclocking it. Enjoy the lower TDP and the 6 core performance makes up for the gap in ghz considering that newer programs are actually utilizing multiple cores.
 

unclewebb

The Real Temp Programmer
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
My advice: don't worry about overclocking it.
This is Overclockers. Of course you should worry about overclocking. :)

The 32nm 6 core Xeons have lots of overclocking headroom. Just have to get all the different multis aligned so you are not pushing any part of the CPU or memory too fast. The results are very rewarding.

3XBqVgb.png

The temperature sensors are not 100% accurate. Typical variation is +/- 5°C.
 

UltraTaco

Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2017
Overclock you must.

Still kinda sad, you're pushing 4.7ghz on that puppy and only able to get compete with 3xxx and 4xxx i7's.. 8700k is not even in sight..probably laughing at the finish line 5 minutes ago...
 

Helgaiden

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2003
This is Overclockers. Of course you should worry about overclocking. :)

The 32nm 6 core Xeons have lots of overclocking headroom. Just have to get all the different multis aligned so you are not pushing any part of the CPU or memory too fast. The results are very rewarding.

3XBqVgb.png

The temperature sensors are not 100% accurate. Typical variation is +/- 5°C.

Whats the single core score?