Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Flying Fox, morphine
MadManOriginal wrote:Where did those 6 extra nm come from Krogoth?
bthylafh wrote:TR's reviews have said that both Ivy Bridge and Haswell were poor overclockers; the last good OCers from Intel were Sandies like my 2500K.
keltor wrote:That's why you replace the thermal paste or something ... maybe a polish or is it a hot wax and buff job.
The first time I overclocked it involved replacing multiple chips on an IBM motherboard that had an 8088 processor.
Airmantharp wrote:Fry's had sealed from-Corsair refurbished H80is for $45 the other day, which was too good to pass up. Wonder how that'd fair, given that it dispatches the heat from my 4.5GHz 2500k with ease at it's lowest setting.
Philldoe wrote:Yep, you don't see many people getting all that much out of their 4770's yet people like up have 2500/2600k's jacked up in the 4.5/6/8 range.
Kougar wrote:Just posing a random question to see how many Gerbils have personally experienced useless 4770K chips?
It's sort of ironic. Knowing how good "Core" was going to be, I bought one of the launch day E6300's. Those turned out to be very leaky chips, but leaky chips also make for great OCers and I took that 1.86 Ghz chip to a 24/7 stable 3.8Ghz under water. I figured why not repeat that, so I bought a launch day 4770K... Not sure about leakiness and it took a great deal of testing, but I figured out "the wall" was 4.3Ghz, so I left it at 4.2Ghz. A month later, the chip had degraded to the point it no longer was stable at anything above 4Ghz! I now regret not buying a vanilla 4770 given this is basically a 4770 with features I could use disabled, but such is hindsight.
Any similar tales with Haswell K chips out there?
chuckula wrote:Mine runs just fine at 4.7GHz and while moar hutrz is always good, I can't complain about the performance, stability or even temps. Even 8 core real-world heavy workloads barely get the temps up to 60C)
Airmantharp wrote:Fry's had sealed from-Corsair refurbished H80is for $45 the other day, which was too good to pass up.
bthylafh wrote:TR's reviews have said that both Ivy Bridge and Haswell were poor overclockers; the last good OCers from Intel were Sandies like my 2500K.
ChronoReverse wrote:My 4.3GHz 4770k (undervolted to 1.2V) seems to be fine so fine *crosses fingers*
Krogoth wrote:22nm process need a ton of volts to keep themselves stable at high clock speeds. The said volts turn the silicon into a blast furnace which is made worse by the thermal paste that is used to bind the heatspreader instead of the older thermal epoxy found in previous generation of LGA chips.
In short, overclockers got spoiled by how well 32nm scaled with overclocking and 22nm doesn't yield anywhere near the returns. I'm not holding my breath for 14nm process, but we will have to wait and see.
chuckula wrote:OK, I rebooted my machine just to help y'all out and here are the pertinent settings:
1. CPU Core Voltage offset +0.150 volts. That puts maximum theoretical voltage at just shy of 1.3V given the base. That's nothing to be terrified of.
2. CPU Cache Voltage offset: +0.150 volts. Don't forget the cache! Separate voltage plane.
3. System Agent Voltage offset: +0.1 volts. This was critical to maintaining stability even when the CPU wasn't necessarily maxed out doing computations. During the system stabilization process I had more lockups when the CPU cores were under 60C doing compile jobs than I had when I was torture-testing the cores with AVX2-enabled Linpack.
Note: I'm doing all of this with full 32GB of RAM that is clocked at 2133 and 1.5 volts, that probably hurts my overclocking potential to some degree.
None of these settings are particularly aggressive, but Haswell is a more complex beast than previous chips. It took testing and awareness of what to be worried about and what not to be worried about before I arrived at my current configuration. Frankly, I've had a *bunch* more issues with one of my Samsung SSDs that I just RMA'd than I've had with my CPU.
Waco wrote:Philldoe wrote:Yep, you don't see many people getting all that much out of their 4770's yet people like up have 2500/2600k's jacked up in the 4.5/6/8 range.
I'd take a 4770K at 4.2 GHz over a 4.6 GHz 2600K any day.
keltor wrote:That's why you replace the thermal paste or something ... maybe a polish or is it a hot wax and buff job.
Philldoe wrote:Waco wrote:Philldoe wrote:Yep, you don't see many people getting all that much out of their 4770's yet people like up have 2500/2600k's jacked up in the 4.5/6/8 range.
I'd take a 4770K at 4.2 GHz over a 4.6 GHz 2600K any day.
http://techreport.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=90747
I wouldn't.
nanoflower wrote:keltor wrote:That's why you replace the thermal paste or something ... maybe a polish or is it a hot wax and buff job.
Didn't Chuckula or someone else do a test with delidding a Haswell and replacing the TIM with paste? Seems like I recall it made some difference but still didn't allow the sort of overclocking that people were experiencing with Sandy Bridge.